B*,^' 



K 



THE ADMISSION OF WOMEN 



TO THE 



GENERAL CONFERENCE. 



A Reply to Dr. Buckley's Pamphlet Because They Are 
Women, and Other Editorials. 



BY REV. G. W.'HUGHEY, D. D., 



OF ST. LOUIS CONFERENCE. 



PRESS OF W. T. P. A. 
CHICAGO. 



& & 



THE ADMISSION OF WOMEN 



TO THB 



GENERAL CONFERENCE. 



A Reply to Dr. Buckley's Pamphlet Because They Are 
Women, and Other Editorials. 





BY REV. G. W. HUGHEY, D. D., 



OF ST. LOUIS CONFERENCE. 



1891. 

Press of w. T. p. A. 

Chicago. 



Mb 



Copyrighted by the Author. 
1891. 



iO my beloved wife who has shared witr\ me tr\e toils and priva- 
tions of tr^e itinerancy for thirty aqd eight years ; to my daugh- 
ters, aqd to the self-sacrificing women who fyave contributed so 
mucrttotr\e success -of Methodism, is thjs little volurr\e affectionately 

iqscribed by the 

AUTHOR. 



PREFACE. 

The following pages are the result of years of patient 
thought and careful study of the Word of God. For 
many years the author has been convinced that the old 
interpretation of I. Cor. 14: 34 and 38, and I. Tim. 2: 
11-15, which closes the mouth of woman in the church, 
and remands her to all the rigors of heathenish subjection 
to her husband, is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel of 
Christ — to the general teaching of the Word of God, both 
of the Old and New Testament, and at variance with the 
known practice of the Apostolic Church, and of the Apos- 
tle Paul himself. I have sought earnestly to find an in- 
terpretation of these passages, that will relieve the Apos- 
tle of the charge of contradicting himself, both in word 
and practice, and that will harmonize with the general 
teaching of the Word of God. I believe that the follow- 
ing pages contain the solution of this question. I have 
no sympathy whatever with any interpretation of these 
passages that would cast a reflection on their inspiration, 
or that would disparage the Apostle. Such an attempt 
is indefensible and not to be thought of for a moment 
by any devout and thoughtful mind. But we must not 
forget, that an interpretation of the Word of God, by 
men never so learned, is ?wt inspiration, and however old 
that interpretation may be, its age can not give it the 
character of inspiration. Any interpretation of the Word 
of God, which is not in harmony with the spirit of Christ 
and the general teaching of the Holy Scriptures, carries 
the evidence of its falsehood on its face. The interpre- 



6 Preface. 

tation of these passages against which we contend, is 
certainly contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, and against 
the general teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and there- 
fore it must be false and unscriptural. The responsibil- 
ity of correcting or perpetuating the wrong that has been 
imposed on the women of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, through the false interpretation of these passages, 
now rests with the members of the Annual Conferences. 
The question has been submitted to the vote of the 
Church, and by an overwhelming majority the Church 
has voted to restore to woman her scriptural rights. Will 
the ministers, after this vote of the Church, vote against 
the enfranchisement of the women, or will they ratify the 
voice of the Church, and bring back the administration 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the New Testa- 
ment basis ? Let us divest ourselves of all prejudice, 
and not suffer ourselves to be influenced by false issues, 
but discharge our duty as men, in the fear of God. 

G. W. Hughky. 
Springfield, Mo., Dec. 26, 1890. 



ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO THE 
GENERAL CONFERENCE. 



CHAPTER I. 
Rights of Womkn. 

In his editorial on ' ' The Rights of Women and 
Others," Dr. Buckley says: 

1 ' Some of the advocates of woman in the General Con- 
ference are talking much about abstract and fundamental 
rights, and demanding their admission on that ground." 
A little further on he says : ' ' Abstract rights must be, 
and are given up in every organization, civil or religious. 
One man on a desert island is ' monarch of all he surveys,' 
because his ' right ' there is none to dispute. If another 
comes, there must be a compromise or war to the death." 

This is true, and much that he has to say on - ' ab- 
stract rights," we do not call in question. But the use 
he makes of the fact that in the social compact, "ab- 
stract rights ' ' must often be given up by the individual, 
utterly fails to meet the case in point, for : 

i. Before "abstract rights," can be given up they 
must be possessed. But Dr. Buckley flatly denies that 
women have any ' ' abstract rights "of government, 
either in the Family, the Church, or the State. With 
him, man by divine appointment has the governing power 
in the Family, the Church, and the State, and for women 
to assume a share of this power, is to make • • void the 

(7) 



8 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

Law of God. ' ' With him, women have but one right, 
and that is the right to obey. To talk about a com- 
promise of abstract rights, where no such rights exist, is 
an insult to our intelligence. 

2. In the social compact, when the individual gives 
up his ''abstract rights," he always receives a larger 
benefit than his ( ' abstract rights ' ' could have secured 
him, and on this ground alone he makes the compromise 
by yielding up his "abstract rights." In a state of 
nature, man has the ' ' abstract right' ' to defend himself, 
his family, and his property. But in a settled community 
he can not enforce this right, hence he compromises with 
the community by giving up his ' ' abstract right, ' ' and 
the community, in return, pledges itself to protect him, 
his family, and his property, by the strong arm of the law- 
In every such compromise the individual is the gainer, 
for he receives much more than he gives up. 

But in the case of women, there has been no giving 
up of "abstract rights," in order to secure a larger ben- 
efit ; but their rights have been taken away from them, 
and then they are gravely told that they ' ' never possessed 
any right to any share in the government of the Family, 
Church, or State." This, indeed, would be a queer sort 
of compromise. It is absurd to talk about the com- 
promise of ■ ' abstract rights, ' ' for the sake of organic 
government, where no abstract rights exist. All the 
Doctor's talk of the necessity of compromising " abstract 
and natural rights, ' ' from his standpoint, is wholly irrel- 
evant to the question, and can have no bearing on it 
whatever. Again he says : "The current talk about 
women having the right to be represented by women in 
the General Conference will not bear inspection." 

We are not contending for "the right of women to be 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. g 

represented by women in the General Conference/' We 
are contending for the right of women as members of the 
Church of Christ, and belonging to the great body of 
Laymen, to be elected by Laymen as Lay Delegates, to 
represent the Laity, without reference to sex. We do 
not make sex a barrier, nor the ground of a privilege or 
right. Sex does not enter into the question on our side. 
It is the other side that has brought sex into this contro- 
versy, and made it a barrier to membership in the Gen- 
eral Conference. On this question, with us, ' ' There is 
neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus." 
But, he continues : 

' ' She has a right to an influence equal to that of 
man. " I was not prepared for such an admission as 
this. It is certainly a giving up of the whole question. 
Women, then, do have " rights " in the Church of 
Christ, and these rights must be either " abstract," "nat- 
ural, " or divine. But what is the right Dr. Buckley 
here accords to woman ? It is " a right to an influence 
equal to that of man. " But, we ask, How is that 
right to be made effective if she is not permitted ' ' to 
teach, " nor to have a voice in shaping the policy and 
administration of the Church ? Will our learned brother 
tell us ? Here, Dr. Buckley admits that woman has ' ; a 
right to an equal influence to that of man, " in the 
Church of Christ, and then turns around and denies her 
the privilege of exercising that right ! But, unfortu- 
nately, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, woman has no 
such " equal influence with man, " and Dr. Buckley's 
whole argument is an effort to prove that she has no such 
right ! Will some one please reconcile the Doctor's 
argument with his admission of woman's right to "an 
Equal influence with man ' ' in the Church ? If she 



io Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

has this " right," then grant her the privilege to exer- 
cise it by putting her on an equality with man in the 
seat of influence and power in the Church. But he con- 
tinues : ' ' But whether it should take the form of rep- 
resentation by delegates of her own sex and membership 
in the General Conference, and of ordination to the min- 
istry, either or both, depends on many things." But 
we ask : If this right is not ' ' to take the form of repre- 
sentation in the General Conference, ' ' what form is it to 
take ? Is there any other method of recognizing this 
''right to an equal influence with man " in the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church? 

The question of the right of women to be admitted to 
the ministry, and to orders, does not enter into this ques- 
tion at all. The question is, "Shall women be recog- 
nized as Laymen, and be admitted as Lay Delegates to 
the General Conference?" It is not: "Shall women 
be recognized as Ministers, and admitted as Ministerial 
Delegates to the General Conference ? ' ' This attempt 
to ' ' tack on ' ' the question of the admission of women to 
the ministry, to the question now before the Church, 
can only be an attempt to raise a prejudice against the 
movement. Whether women ought to be admitted to 
the ministry on an equality with men, is another ques- 
tion entirely, and should be settled on its own merits, 
and not be brought in as a side issue in this contest, 
for it is a totally different question. The only question 
now before us is, " Are women Laymen, entitled to the 
rights and privileges of Laymen ? ' ' Again Dr. Buckley 
says : 

" The whole system of Methodism, like every other 
Church government, is a compromise of natural rights 
for co-operation. Church government does not derive its 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 1 1 

just powers primarily from the consent of the governed, 
but from the Word and the providence of God. It can 
never consistently work direct injustice and oppres- 
sion ; but can and does require the surrender of all ab- 
stract 'rights,' the surrender of which is necessary to its 
existence, authority, and greatest efficiency." The ques- 
tion, then, arises, Is it ' ' necessary to the existence, au- 
thority, and greatest efficiency " of Methodism, that the 
women of Methodism shall surrender their ' 'right to an 
influence equal to that of the men ' ' of Methodism ? 
They have the "right," for Dr. Buckley himself says 
they have. Does ' ' the existence, authority and great- 
est efficiency of Methodism ' ' demand that they shall 
surrender this right, and get nothing in return for it ? 
From the argument of the Doctor we would certainly con- 
clude that not only the existence of Methodism, but the 
integrity of the law of God itself, depended, not upon 
the women surrendering this right, but upon the men 
of Methodism refusing to restore the right which they 
have taken away from them ! ! 

But finally he says : 

' 'The only determining questions to be asked concern- 
ing the admission of women to the General Conference 
are : Do the Scriptures allow it ? And if they allow it, 
is there reason to believe that it will contribute to the 
true prosperity of the Church ? " 

After all the Doctor's discussion of ' rights abstract ' 
1 natural, ' and ' fundamental, ' he admits that the question 
must be settled by an appeal to the Word of God! If the 
Word of God gives woman 'a right to an influence equal 
to that of man,' in the Church of Christ, and Dr. Buck- 
ley says she has that right, and if she has, God's Word 
has given it to her, no power on earth has the right to 



12 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

take it away from her, or to deprive her of the privilege 
of exercising it ; and to do so, is an act of ecclesiastical 
tyranny of the very worst character. We accept his ap- 
peal to the Word of God, and by its decisions we are 
willing to abide. 



CHAPTER II. 

" Making Void the Law of God." 

The above is the title of Dr. Buckley's second editorial 
which constitutes the second chapter of his pamphlet. 
The first part of this remarkable document is an account 
of ''a State Convention of the advocates of female suf- 
frage in San Francisco," which he attended nineteen 
years ago ! ! He gives an epitome (I presume from mem- 
ory ) of two infidel speeches which were delivered in that 
Convention — one delivered by a female physician, a Mrs. 
Dr. White, in which she delivered a tirade against the 
Bible, and denounced the Apostle Paul, as " Old Paul," 
etc. , etc. After protests from two Christian members of 
the Convention to Mrs. Dr. White's infidel tirade against 
the Bible and Paul, an elderly man arose and said, while 
he agreed with Mrs. Dr. White in regard to the Bible 
and "Old Paul," that was not the way to succeed. The 
only way to succeed was to get Christians interested in 
the movement, and they would dig the sense right out of 
1 1 Old Paul ' ' and the Bible, and put new interpretations 
on it, just as the Universalists have done, etc., etc. Then 
he goes on to say : 

' ' This man was a prophet. The early female suf- 
fragists were nearly all infidels, or half-way infidels. 
They made little progress for a long while, but within a 
few years, female suffrage has been 'tacked on' to another 
cause, to the great detriment of that cause (we do not 
refer to the sympathy, help and words of women, but to 

(13) 



14 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

the connection of female suffrage with the temperance 
cause), and lo! many Christians are found who are ready 
to dig the plain sense out of the words, and make void 
the law of God, using the very principles of interpreta- 
tion to do it by which the Unitarians, Universalists, and 
other unevangelical Christians have gotten rid of the in- 
carnation, the fall of man, the atonement of Jesus Christ, 
and eternal punishment and retribution. " 

We ask what connection had that convention of 
woman suffragists in San Francisco, Cal., and the infidel 
speeches delivered in it nineteen years ago, with the 
question of the admission of women as lay delegates to the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church ? 
Simply this, and nothing more — it is an appeal to preju- 
dice, an attempt to ' ' tack on ' ' the movement to restore 
to woman her original right to sit in the Councils of the 
Church, to the movement in favor of woman suffrage, 
and thus cast odium upon those who advocate it by asso- 
ciating them with "the infidels, and half-way infidels," 
whom «he declares constituted ' ' nearly all the early ad- 
vocates of female suffrage." To cast still further odium 
upon us, he classes us, as interpreters of the Word of 
God, with " Unitarians, Universalists, and other unevan- 
gelical Christians," and affirms that we adopt their prin- 
ciples of interpretation ! ! 

Now, we ask, Is this the proper way for a Christian 
minister to conduct a controversy with his brethren, 
many of whom are equally as learned as he, and all of 
whom are equally as honest and conscientious, and have 
as deep a reverence for the Word of God as he has ? A 
cause that requires such a line of defense by as able an 
advocate as Dr. Buckley, must be inherently weak, and 
he must feel its weakness, and his inability to defend 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 15 

it by legitimate methods or sensible arguments. In 
telling us 

' ' HOW IT IS DONE, ' ' 

he says : 

"In making void that part of God's law which 
they consider obnoxious, they begin by saying that ' • the 
letter killeth." 

To this we reply that this is certainly true when an 
interpretation is given to ' ' the letter' ' of a passage which 
contradicts the Spirit of the Gospel and this is precisely 
what Paul means. Many interpretations of the letter of 
particular passages, without regard to the Spirit of the 
Gospel, have killed multitudes of souls. No class of 
interpreters have ever been more learned, or more pious 
than those of the Calvinistic School, who have found in 
" the letter" of many passages in Paul's epistles vastly 
stronger authority for the doctrine of election and repro- 
bation, than Dr. Buckley can find in Paul's writings to 
exclude women from the General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church. Yet he does not accept their in- 
terpretation of ' ' the letter' ' of those passages. How 
does he get out of it ? Does he adopt the principles of 
interpretation adopted "by Unitarians, Universalists, 
and other unevangelical Christians ? " I doubt not but 
many of our earnest Calvinistic brethren would charge 
him with doing that very thing. But would the charge 
be true ? It would certainly be as true as his charge 
against us. In illustrating his charge against us of 
making "void the Law of God " by our interpretations, 
he says : 

"Then before beginning to examine the passages, 
they endeavor to raise a prejudice against their plain 
sense. Here is a passage from a tract, called " The Bible 



1 6 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

and Women, ' ' written by a minister of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church. 

"After giving the verses of the Bible the writer says : 
' The doctrine commonly drawn from these passages con- 
tradicts our sense of justice.' " 

To this he replies : 

" To set up human judgment and feeling against the 
natural interpretation and plain sense of the words before 
ascertaining the meaning is the common method of re- 
jecting the sense of God's Word." 

Now, let Dr. Buckley get into a controversy with a 
Calvinist, and the very first thing he will do will be to 
say "that the doctrine drawn from these passages by 
Calvinists contradicts our sense of justice." The fact 
that the Calvinistic interpretation, though in perfect 
harmony with ' ' the letter ' ' of the passages, contra- 
dicts his sense of justice, compels him to appeal from 
that interpretation of "the letter" to " the Spirit" of 
the Gospel, and the general teaching of the Word of 
God on the subject. Could he be justly charged with 
adopting the principles of interpretation adopted by 
"Unitarians, Universalists, and other unevangelical 
Christians' ' ? Most certainly not. Yet this is precisely 
what we do, when we appeal from his interpretation of 
the passages in Paul's epistles, and for this, he charges 
us with making ' ' void the I^aw of God, ' ' by adopting 
" the principles of interpretation adopted by Unitarians, 
Universalists, and other unevangelical Christians " ! ! 
This is the only safe and correct method of interpreta- 
tion, and it is the one adopted by the very best inter- 
preters of all schools of theology. It does not set aside 
the plain sense of the Word of God, but it enables us to 
ascertain its true sense. 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 17 

He continues : 

' ' The next method is to say that ' no Greek scholar 
now believes that the New Testament injunctions con- 
cerning women were intended to be of permanent and 
general application.' 

" It is a curious fact that the person who uttered that 
with the greatest emphasis had no knowledge what- 
ever of Greek, but it has been repeated until its orig- 
inal source is forgotten. The fact is, that for one scholar 
worthy the name who says that the New Testament does 
not restrict the authority of woman in the family and in 
the Church, giving man in both a leadership not allowed 
to her, a hundred maintain that it does." 

To this we reply : 

1. It does not require a knowledge of the Greek to 
know that the passages referred to, ' ' were not intended to 
be of permanent and general application. ' ' A careful study 
of the English Bible will settle that question without an 
appeal to the Greek, as we shall see in the course of this 
discussion. 

2. This question can not be settled by the number 
of scholars for or against it. If Bible questions could be 
settled by this method, then unquestionably the doctrine 
of necessity, as opened to the freedom of the will, is 
scriptural, for from the days of Augustine to Jonathan 
Edwards, for one scholar who contended for the heedom 
of the will, there were a hundred who denied it ; and 
nearly all those who contended for it, were heretics, 
' ' infidels or half-way infidels. ' ' Then also is the Romish 
doctrine of the Primacy of St. Peter true, for from the 
days of Gregory the Great to Martin Luther, for one 
scholar who opposed it, there were a hundred who advo- 
cated it, and cited as proof positive, Matt. 16: 18, 19. 



1 8 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

But Dr. Buckley will not stand by this rule when he 
comes to the claims of Calvinists and Papists, and we 
will not recognize it in this controversy on the rights of 
women in the Church. This question can not be settled 
by an appeal to human authority, however learned ; it 
can only be settled by an appeal to the Word of God, 
fairly interpreted in the light of the Spirit of the Gospel, 
and the general teaching of the Holy Scriptures. 

This is the only rational and safe method of interpre- 
tation, and by it we propose to stand or fall. We shall 
not be governed by the assumption of Dr. Buckley, that 
such and such is the plain and natural meaning of such 
and such passages of Scripture. This is the method of 
the Romanist to prove the doctrine of Transubstantia- 
tion. He quotes the words of Jesus, " This is my body," 
and says, the plain, obvious and natural meaning of these 
words is, that the sacramental bread is the very body of 
the Iyord Jesus ; and to confirm it, quotes further from 
the words of Jesus : " Except ye eat my flesh, and drink 
my blood, ye have no life in you." The plai?i, obviates 
and natural meaning of ' ' the letter ' ' of these passages 
proves the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation more 
clearly than the passages from Paul prove that woman is 
and must be excluded from all voice in the government 
of the family, the Church, and the State. Will Dr. 
Buckley stick to his rule of interpretation here, or will 
he adopt ours, or will he adopt the method of the ' ' Uni- 
tarians, Universalists and other evangelical Christians ' ' ? 

DISPARAGING THK APOSTl<KS. 

On this charge which he brings against us, he says : 
"The second chapter of a work entitled ( Woman in the 
Pulpit ' says, ' Christ, not Paul, is the source of all 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 19 

Churchly authority and power. ' The Christian Advocate in 
1888., at the request of the author, Miss Wiilard, stated 
that it would be changed so as to read: The Christ of the 
gospels, not the pseudo Paul of theology, is the source of 
all Churchly authority and power. ' We give both state- 
ments, confessing an inability to see why the change was 
made or what it means." Certainly this passage, as ex- 
plained by the writer, can not be given as an example of 
"disparaging the apostles," notwithstanding Dr. Buck- 
ley's " inability to see why the change was made or what 
it means." An ordinary mind can find no difficulty in 
understanding what "the pseudo Paul of theology " 
means, whether Dr. Buckley can or not. It can only 
mean : "Paul as falsely interpreted by theologians," 
and most certainly such a pseudo Paul is not authority. 
The writer unquestionably meant that Paul must be 
interpreted in the light of the teaching of Christ in 
the Gospels, and not by putting a false construction on 
his words, by theologians, which would make him con- 
tradict the teaching of Christ. Certainly this is not dis- 
paraging the apostles ! 

But he continues : 

* ' Others go much further, flatly denying the au- 
thority of Pauk We have heard him held up to ridi- 
cule in a Methodist pulpit, called the supreme egotist, a 
woman hater, either an old bachelor or a widower who 
had lived unhappily with his wife." 

This is a very grave charge to bring against a 
Methodist minister, and if Dr. Buckley heard such utter- 
ances by a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
it was his plain duty to bring charges against him for 
denying the inspiration of the Apostle Paul, and he 



20 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

ought to have been expelled from the Church and 
ministry. 

He then gives us quite a lengthy quotation from the 
Pacific Christian Advocate, under a former administration, 
in which the writer uses very unwarranted, irreverent 
and foolish expressions, and then adds : 

' ' By such means, from pulpit and press, the minds 
of many have become so perplexed and distorted as not 
to know what the New Testament does teach." 

In reply to this wholesale charge of disparaging the 
apostles, and making light of the Word of God, we 
remark, that we have never read a more unfair and unjust 
accusation made against any class of Christian men and 
women, than Dr. Buckley here makes against those who 
conscientiously differ with him on this question. There 
may be here and there an irresponsible one, foolish and 
irreverent enough to use such language as he here charges; 
but to charge this upon the advocates of the admission of 
women into the General Conference in general, is unjust. 

How Dr. Buckley, in his mad zeal against the women, 
could be led into such a course passes our compre- 
hension. All of our church papers have been filled with 
articles on this subject for two or three months past, and 
every phase of it has been discussed by able, honest, 
representative men and women of the Church, and not a 
single sentence of this character has been written, by a 
single intelligent, representative man or woman in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. He has not pretended to 
find a single sentence or line of such l ' disparaging of 
the apostles ' ' in all the articles published in all of our 
Advocates from any responsible party, during the entire 
controversy. Yet he parades the foolish sayings of 
irresponsible parties, whom nobody knows, and then 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 2 1 

charges this foolish and irreverent twaddle on the advo- 
cates of the admission of women to the General Confer- 
ence, and affirms that it is by such methods that we 
have ' ' perplexed and distorted ' ' the minds of the people, 
until they do not know what the New Testament does 
teach ! ! Does the cause of truth and God require such 
a mode of defense ! ! ! 

"TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY." 

Under this head he says, " We present the words : 

" 1 Cor. 11:3. But I would have you know that the 
head of every man is Christ ; and the head of the woman 
is the man ; and the head of Christ is God. 

" 4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his 
head covered, dishonoreth his head. 

"5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth 
with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head : for that 
is even all one as if she were shaven." 

He leaves out verse six, which reads : 

" 6. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be 
shorn ; but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or 
shaven, let her be covered." 

"7. For a man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, 
for as much as he is the image and glory of God : but 
the woman is the glory of the man. 

"8. For the man is not of the woman; but the 
woman of the man. 

' ' 9. Neither was the man created for the woman ; 
but woman for the man." 

He leaves out verse ten, which reads : — 

"10. For this cause ought the woman to have power 
on her head because of the angels." 

"11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the 



22 Admissio7i of Women to the General Conference. 

woman, neither the woman without the man, in the 
Lord." 

He stops with this verse, but Paul goes on, and says, 

" 12. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the 
man also by the woman ; but all things of God. 

"13. Judge in yourselves ; is it comely that a woman 
pray unto God uncovered? 

" 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a 
man have long hair it is a shame unto him. 

"15. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to 
her : for her hair is given her for a covering." 

On this passage the Doctor says: "What does it 
mean? It certainly means a distinction between men and 
women." Of course it does. We all admit that 
there is a distinction between men and women. But the 
question is: Does this distinction give man the supreme 
power of government in the family, the Church and the 
State, and assign to woman the position of a servant, 
whose only business is to obey ? It does not follow that 
because there is a distinction between man and woman, 
that therefore man is lord and woman subject. This 
Dr. Buckley assumes, but this is the very point in con- 
troversy. He then gives a lengthy quotation from Dr. 
Whedon's commentary on this passage and then adds: 
"Rules of etiquette may change in the course of the ages, 
but whatever they are, the apostolic teaching is that 
woman should respect the divine order. To prevent 
this passage from reflecting upon the true dignity of 
woman the eleventh and twelfth verses were undoubtedly 
written." 

This is all that he has to say in exposition of this 
passage!! But what is the purport of the quotation 
from Dr. Whedon ? 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 23 

1. It is an argument to prove that man ought to 
rule in the fa?nily and State, — not a single word about 
man governing in the Church in the entire quotation ! ! 
And why should man rule in the family and State ? Be- 
cause of his superior muscular strength and physical 
endowments ! ! He says : ' ' The whole history of civili- 
zation shows that the robust thought and toil are man's. 
The pyramids, the temples, the capitoliums, the city 
walls and towers, the aqueducts and bridges, the rail- 
ways and telegraphs, are all the product of man's hand 
and brain. The battles by him are fought, and by con- 
sequence to him belong (save in exceptional instances) 
the diplomacies, the senates, the cabinets, and the execu- 
tive chairs. In short, to man belongs, by nature and by 
God, the national as well as the domestic rule. ' ' I have 
great respect for Dr. Whedon as a scholar, but I have no 
respect for the reasoning that deduces the right to rule 
from physical force. This is the old heathen doctrine 
that might makes right— man has the muscular power to 
enforce obedience, and therefore he has the right by God 
and nature to rule in the family and the State. Woman 
has not the muscular power to enforce obedience, and 
therefore she has no right to rule ! ! That was good 
doctrine for savages, when war clubs were the symbols of 
power ; but it is unfit to be pleaded under a government 
founded on Christian civilization, where moral, and not 
physical forces govern and control. If man has the right 
to rule under Christian civilization, that right must be 
based on his moral and mental, and not his physical 
qualifications for government. Woman accomplishes 
grander works than " building pyramids, temples, capi- 
toliums, city walls, bridges, aqueducts, railways, and 
telegraphs, or fighting battles." She builds characters, 



24 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

and trains men for statesmen, ministers and reformers — 
to her has been committed by her Creator the grander 
work of laying the very foundations of the national 
structure, in the character and moral training of the men 
who make States, and found governments. If men 
ought to govern, because to them has been committed 
because of the coarser fiber of their natures, those inferior 
works enumerated by Dr. Whedon, then woman ought 
to rule because to her has been committed the superior 
works we have enumerated. 

2. In this quotation Dr. Whedon affirms the right of 
women to prophesy, that is, to preach, to "take a text of 
Scripture at any time, in any proper place, and give her 
views and experience in connection therewith. Whether 
she begin with a text or end with a text is immaterial !" 
It is plain from Dr. Whedon's remarks, that he held the 
right of women to preach, and recognized their call to that 
work, and in this he flatly contradicts Dr. Buckley, for 
one of his strongest arguments against the admission of 
women to the General Conference is, it will lead to their 
entering the ministry ! 

3. On this passage Dr. Whedon remarks : 

' ' Of course the apostle at the present day would not 
consider the head as possessing any religious significancec 
Women now sit or stand before men with uncovered 
heads, not only in the social circle, but in large assem- 
blies ; nor is it a?iy religious obligation that requires her 
to wear a bonnet in church, or forbids her to speak or 
pray with her bonnet off. And all this, when The 

LETTER OF THE APOSTLE'S LANGUAGE CONDEMNS THE 
UNCOVERED HEAD IN THE MOST EXPLICIT TERMS." 

This part of Dr. Whedon's comment on the passage Dr. 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 25 

Buckley leaves out, and quotes only what immediately 
follows ; viz. : 

"But really Paul condemned the uncovered female 
head of his day because it then expressed the moving 
of woman from her sphere, and suggested a dishonoring 
association, calculated to bring the purity of the Church 
into suspicion." On verse 14, Dr. Whedon remarks : 

' ' Yet if nature — that is, instinct of propriety — did teach 
that long hair was a shame to a man in Paul's day, it 
equally taught the Homeric Greeks that it was a pride, 
and it teaches the Chinese at the present day that a pig- 
tail is a dignity to every male celestial. That is, the 
instinct varies its decision according to circumstances, to 
customs and feelings of age and race, and to reasons de- 
rived from symbol and sign. Paul radically assumes 
that Christianity ratifies the authority of the 
instinct ; but he gives the application and the 
decisions of the instinct as they suited his age 
and peoples." 

Now, if this passage, with its elaborate argument, 
drawn from the headship of man — his priority in crea- 
tion — his being in the image of the glory of God, and 
woman the glory of man ; and from nature itself, to prove 
that a man ought not to have his head covered when he 
preaches or prays, nor wear long hair, but that a woman 
ought to have her head covered when she preaches or 
prays, and that she ought to wear long hair, is not to be 
considered a general law of the New Testament, binding 
on all ages, but simply the settlement of a question of 
"etiquette," as Dr. Buckley calls it, affecting only the 
Church of Corinth, and other Greek churches of the 
apostle's day, where like customs prevailed ; how can it 
be claimed with such assurance that I. Cor. 14 : 34-38, 



26 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

and I.Tim. 2:11, 15, lay down a general law, bind- 
ing on all ages ? But the climax of absurdity is reached 
when Dr. Buckley attempts to deduce a general law, gov- 
erning the whole Church, from a passage of Scripture 
confessedly designed to simply settle a question of " eti- 
quette " in a local church, and which has no bearing, even 
on the social customs of the general church ! 

The only things in this passage on which Dr. Buck- 
ley bases man's right to govern in the family, the Church, 
and the State, and woman's subjection to him, is his 
headship and priority of creation. But, if these give 
him the right to rule, — that is, if he is the head of the 
woman in the sense of being her ruler, — then, the Custom 
based on that fact, that she must have her head covered 
in the public assembly as a token of her subjection, can 
not be simply a question of ' ' etiquette ' ' in the Church 
of Corinth ; but it must be a general law governing all 
public assemblies in all ages. The conclusions based 
upon the premises must hold good as long as the prem- 
ises hold good. If the directions here given, or the law 
laid down, is of special application, then the argument 
to sustain it must be of special application. There can 
be no more in the argument than there is in the law 
based upon the argument. Dr. Buckley is bound to take 
the position that Paul is here laying down a general law 
for the whole Church, and for all time, and that it is 
just as binding on the women of the Church to-day to 
wear the veil in the public assemblies, and to wear long 
hair, as it was on the women in the Church of Corinth. 
On I. Cor. 14:35, Dr. Whedon says: "Shame — con- 
trary to the existing views of propriety : Just as in 11: 14, 
(where we note) it is a shame for a man to wear long 
hair. When women are so cultured that it is not a shame, 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 27 

but a beauty, for a woman to speak, then the prohibition 
ceases, BECAUSE THE REASON FOR IT CEASES, just as the 
prohibition of long hair to man ceases." Just as long as 
the reason for the law holds good, the law holds good. 
Whenever the reason for the law passes away, then the 
law passes away, and not until then. Dr. Buckley is 
bound to hold that the law laid down in I. Cor. 11 : 3-14, 
is still binding on the Church, or admit that he is mis- 
taken in his interpretation of the import of the headship 
and priority of man in creation. 

The attempt of Drs. Buckley and Whedon to parry 
the force of this conclusion, which they saw must be 
inevitable, will not meet the case. Dr. Buckley says : 
11 Rules of etiquette may change in the course of ages, 
but whatever they are, the apostolic teaching is that 
woman should respect the divine order. ' ' Dr. Whedon 
says : ' ' Paul radically assumes that Christianity ratifies 
the authority of the instinct ; but he gives the applica- 
tion and the decisions of the instinct as they suited his 
age and peoples. ' ' According to the positions here taken, 
it is just as binding on women to appear in the public 
assemblies with their heads uncovered now, and to 
uncover their heads when they preach or pray, as it was 
for them to have their heads covered in the Church of 
Corinth; for the uncovered head, according to our rules 
of etiquette, is the sign of subjection, as much as the 
covered head was at Corinth. But Dr. Buckley will not 
insist upon this, and yet he is bound to, or give up his 
interpretation of I. Cor. 11: 3-14. 

But let us examine this question of man's headship 
and priority of creation, and see if it involves govern- 
mental power over woman, and her subjection to him. 
This is the claim of Dr. Buckley, and of all who hold the 



28 Admission of Wome?z to the General Conference. 

doctrine of woman's subjection to man. " But I would 
have you know that the head of every man is Christ ; 
and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of 
Christ is God." 

i. If headship here means the right to govern, then 
we have a graduated hierarchy ; God governing Christ ; 
— Christ governing man ; — and man governing woman ! 
Dr. Buckley will hardly contend for this, and yet if 
headship here confers power to govern, no other inter- 
pretation is possible. God's headship of Christ is cer- 
tainly not a headship of government, for the Holy 
Scriptures assert in the most positive and unequivocal 
manner the equality of the Son with the Father, in nat- 
ure, authority and power. The headship of God over 
Christ then is a headship that admits of absolute equal- 
ity in governmental authority. 

2. Christ's headship of man gives him no govern- 
mental authority and power over man that He does not 
have over woman. Christ is in no sense ' ' the head of the 
man," in government, authority and power, that He is 
not the head of the woman also. In this sense He is 
"the Head of the Church," and of the human race, yea, 
of the whole universe of created intelligences ? Hence 
it is not a headship of government at all that Paul is 
speaking of. 

3. If the headship of God over Christ, and the head- 
ship of Christ over " the man " is not a headship of gov- 
ernment, authority and power, then the headship of 
"the man" over woman is not a headship of govern- 
ment, authority and power. The headship of God 
over Christ is a headship that admits of absolute equality 
in nature, authority and power ; and hence the headship 
of the man over the woman must be a headship that ad- 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 29 

mits of absolute equality in authority and power, or there 
is no analogy in the headships spoken of in this passage. 

4. But it was as true before the fall, that " the man" 
was " the head of the woman," and that " the man was 
created before the woman," and that "the woman was 
made for the man," as it ever has been since; but his 
headship and priority of creation conferred on him no 
authority and power to rule over her then, nor subject 
her to him. Neither Dr. Buckley, nor any other woman 
subjectionist, pretends to go higher for authority for 
woman's subjection to man than Gen. 3:16. They find 
the law of subjection not in creation, but in the curse 
pronounced upon Eve for her part in inducing Adam to 
sin : — "And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he 
shall rule over thee." Here woman is made subject to 
man, as a penalty for her sin in inducing him to eat of 
the forbidden fruit. Now, a child can see that if she 
was subjected to man, and he given power to rule over 
her as a penalty for her sin, she could not have been 
made subject to him in creation, and that he had no 
authority ' ' to rule over her ' ' by virtue of his headship 
and priority in creation. To attempt to deduce any such 
authority and power from the language of Paul in this 
passage, is a perversion of the plain and natural sense of 
the passage destroys its analogy, and contradicts the 
facts in the story of Creation and the fall of man. 

These facts show conclusively that this passage must 
be given up by Dr. Buckley and the woman subjection- 
ists. When properly understood, it furnishes no authority 
for their claim. The doctrine of woman's subjection, 
and man's right to rule, is not in the passage at all. That 
is not the question that the apostle was deciding ; but 
whether women ought to have their heads covered or 



30 Admissio?i of Women to the General Conference. 

uncovered in the congregation, and when conducting the 
public services. He decides for the covered head, be- 
cause the uncovered head was a sign of female impurity, 
and the honor of the Church was at stake, and its char- 
acter for purity before the people of Corinth, and this is 
the reason why he argues so strongly for the covered 
female head. It was not a sign of woman's subjection 
to man, but the sign of her purity, that demanded the 
covered head. On I. Cor. 11:5, Dr. Charles Hodge 
says : 

' ' The veils worn by Grecian women were of different 
kinds. One, and perhaps the most common, was thepep- 
lum, or mantle, which in public was thrown over the head 
and enveloped the whole person. The other was more 
in the fashion of the common Eastern veil which covered 
the face, with the exception of the eyes. In one form 
or other, the custom was universal for all RESPECTABLE 
women to appear veiled in public. The apostle therefore 
says, that a woman who speaks in public with her head 
uncovered dishonoreth her head. Here iocvrrji i s used, 
her own head ; not her husband's, but herself. This 
is plain ; not only from the force of the words, but 
from the next clause, for that is even all one as if she 
were shaven. This is the reason why she disgraces 
herself. She puts herself in the same class with women 
whose hair has been cut off. Cutting off the hair, which 
is the principal natural ornament of women, was either 
a sign of grief, Deut. 21: 12, or a disgraceful punishment. 
The literal translation of this clause is : she is one and the 
same thing with one who is shaven. She assumes the 
characteristic mark of a disreputable woman." 

On verse 6 he remarks : 

"That is, let her act consistently. If she wishes to 



Admission of Women to the Ge?ieral Conference. 31 

be regarded as a reputable woman, let her conform to the 
established usage. But if she have no regard for her 
reputation, let her act as other women of her class. She 
must conform either to the reputable or disreputable 
class of her sex, for a departure from the one is conform- 
ing to the other." 

These facts, so forcibly stated by Dr. Hodge, show 
why Paul deemed it so important that the women of the 
Church of Corinth should always appear with the veil 
on, as the unveiled head was a mark and sign of impurity, 
and thus reproach would be brought on the Church, and 
on the name of Christ. 

The eleventh and twelfth verses are wholly inconsistent 
with the idea of woman's subjection to man. Here the 
equality of man and woman, and the mutual dependence 
of the one on the other, is clearly set forth. Dr. Buck- 
ley says : 

"To prevent this passage from reflecting upon the 
true dignity of woman the eleventh and twelfth verses 
were undoubtedly written." What is " the true dignity 
of woman," according to Dr. Buckley ? If she is put in 
subjection to man, and not permitted to have any voice 
in the government of the family, the Church, or the 
State, we would like to know in what her "true dignity" 
consists ! ! We think, that to prevent the misunderstand- 
ing of the passage by the Corinthians, and others, so as 
to construe it to mean man's lordship and woman's sub- 
jection, these verses were written, plainly teaching the 
equality and mutual dependence of the sexes on each 
other. 

The second passage the Doctor brings forward to 
prove man's right to rule, in the family, the Church, and 
the State, is I. Cor. 14: 34-38. 



32 Admission of Women to the General Cojiference. 

" 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches : 
for it is not permitted unto them to speak ; but they are 
comma?ided to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 

'•35. And if they will learn anything, let them ask 
their husbands at home, for it is a shame for a woman to 
speak in the church. 

: ! came the word of God out from you ? or 
came it unto you only ? 

If any man think himself to be a prophet or 
spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I 
write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 

" 38. But if any man be ignorant, let him be igno- 
rant.'' 

On this passage Dr. Buckley remarks: 
It should be noticed that St. Paul, an inspired 
apostle, interprets the law. for he says, 'as alio saith the 
law.' Thus he puts an end to a great deal of quibbling 
by uninspired persons concerning the meaning of the 
Old Testament on the place of woman in the family and 
the Church. 

"This passage being in the same epistle and in a 
direction to the same church, can rot by the apostle be 
intended to contradict what he had before stated. It is 
plain, therefore, that prophesying and praying are 
prohibited, but only such di-; : .--.: mi and action as would 
conflict with the command to be in obedier This is 

all he has to say on this important passage. 

On this passage, and Dr. Buckley's comment thereon. 
^mark : 

1. Th ; ords in verse 34, "they are commanded" 
are not the words of Paul, but words supplied by cur 
translators. 

2. The words "as also with the law," in verse 34, 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 33 

have no reference to the general teaching or M meaning 
of the Old Testament on the place of woman in the family 
and the Chnrch ;" but, if they refer to the law of Moses, 
they refer specifically to Gen. 3: 16 : "and he shall rule 
over thee;'' which is the only command that Dr. Buck- 
le}', or an}' other woman subjectionist pretends to bring 
from the Old Testament to prove woman's subjection to 
man, and the important bearing of that passage on the 
question will be fully noted further on. This language 
by no means settles the Old Testament teaching "con- 
cerning woman's place in the family and the Church." 

3. This assumption that " it is plain, therefore, that 
prophesying and praying are not prohibited, but such 
discussion and action as would conflict with the com- 
mand to be in obedience," is not "plain" to many men, 
equally as learned as he. It will be seen at a glance that 
the Doctor here deserts his own rule of interpretation — 
ascertaining- the meaning of the words of the passage first, 
and seeks an explanation of the meaning of the words 
by the meaning of the former passage ! ! But we must 
inform him that this is not admissible just yet. We 
must first ascertain the meaning of the words of this pas- 
sage, and that may help us to a proper understanding of 
the former passage. On so important a passage, bearing 
on so important a question, we can not permit him to 
assume the very point in debate, and give to words un- 
usual meanings just to suit his purpose, and then say 
with all the authority of an oracle, "It is plain, therefore, 
that they mean what I say." He certainly has the 
weight of authority against him in his interpretation of 
this passage. The plain and natural meaning of the 
words of this passage is that absolute silence is enjoined 
on women in the Church, and that they are not permitted 



34 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

to speak i?i prayer, to prophesy, or to ask a question. This 
absolute silence is enforced by an appeal to ' ' the law, ' ' 
and to the fact that " it is a shame for a woman to speak 
in the Church." 

4. The silence and obedience enjoined by this passage 
is absolutely incompatible with the office of a public 
teacher, such as is involved in the office of prophesying. 

If women are recognized as public teachers and evan- 
gelists, as Dr. Buckley says Paul recognized them, then 
they can not be under the law of silence and obedience; 
for a public teacher must both speak and have authority; 
and his interpretation of this passage makes Paul flatly 
contradict himself. He attempts to explain this passage 
by the former ; but his attempt destroys the whole force 
of the passage, for his explanation destroys the prohibi- 
tion altogether. Does he not know, that from John Cal- 
vin down to Dr. Charles Hodge, I. Cor. 11: 3-5, has 
been explained by them by this passage, and not this by 
that, and that they therefore claim that all speaking in 
the Church including praying and prophesying is pro- 
hibited to women ? Take the position that I. Cor. 1 1 : 
3-14, was designed to simply settle a local, social ques- 
tion, or a question oi etiquette in the Church of Corinth, 
and that this passage lays down a permanent law binding 
on all ages, and there is no escaping the conclusion of 
our Presbyterian brethren, and the mouths of our women 
are forever closed in the Church. 

On this passage Dr. Albert Barnes remarks : 

"34. Let your women keep silence, etc. This rule is 
positive, explicit and universal. There is no ambiguity 
in the expressions ; and there can be no difference of 
opinion, we would suppose, in regard to their meaning. 
The sense evidently is, that in all those things which he 



Admission of Women to the General Confere?ice. 35 

had specified, the women were to keep silence ; they 
were to take no part. He had discoursed of speaking 
foreign languages, and of prophecy, and the evident 
sense is, that in regard to all these they were to keep 
silence, or were not to engage in them. These pertained 
solely to the male portion of the congregation. These things 
constituted the business of the public teaching : and in 
this the female part of the congregation were to be silent. 
They were not to teach the people, nor were they to in- 
terrupt those who were speaking. It is probable that, on 
pretense of being inspired, the women had assumed the 
office of public teachers. In ch. 11, Paul had argued 
against their doing this in a certain manner without their 
veils (ch. 11: 4), and he had shown that on that account 
and in that manner, it was improper for them to assume 
the office of public teachers, and to conduct the devo- 
tions of the Church. The force of the argument in ch. 1 1 
is, that what he there states would be a sufficient reason 
against the practice, even if there were no other. It was 
contrary to all decency and propriety that they should 
appear in that manner -in public. He here argues against 
the practice on every ground ; forbids it altogether, 
and shows that on every consideration it was to be 
regarded as improper for them even so much as to ask a 
question in time of public service. There is, therefore, 
no inconsistency between the argument in ch. 11 and the 
statement here ; and the force of the whole is, that on 
every consideration it was improper, and to be expressly 
prohibited, for women to conduct the devotions of the 
Church. It does not refer to those only who claimed to 
be inspired, but to all ; it does not refer merely to acts of 
public preaching, but to all acts of speaking or even ask- 
ing questions, when the church is assembled for public 



36 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

worship. No rule in the New Testament is more posi- 
tive than this ; and however plausible may be the reasons 
which may be urged for disregarding it, and for suffering 
women to take part in conducting public worship, yet 
the authority of the Apostle Paul is positive, and his 
meaning can not be mistaken. Comp. I. Tim. 2: 11, 12. 

Dr. Charles Hodge takes the same view in his com- 
mentary on this passage. He says : 

"The fact that in no Christian Church was public 
speaking permitted to woman was itself a strong proof 
that it was unchristian, i. <?., contrary to the spirit of 
Christianity. Paul, however, adds to the prohibition the 
weight of apostolic authority, and not of that only but 
also the authority of reason and of Scripture. // is not 
permitted to them to speak. The speaking intended is 
public speaking and especially in the Church. * * The 
rational ground for this prohibition is that it is contrary to 
the relation of subordination in which the woman stands 
to the man that she appears as a public teacher. Both 
the Jews and Greeks adopted the same rule, and there- 
fore the custom, which the Corinthians seemed disposed 
to introduce, was contrary to established usage." 

If this passage, and I. Tim. 2: 1 1, 12, are to be un- 
derstood as a universal law, binding on the whole 
Church, and for all time, then the conclusion of Drs. 
Barnes and Hodge are inevitable, and women must close 
their mouths in prophecy, prayer, testimony and song ; 
11 for it is not permitted for them to speak," " for it is a 
shame for a woman to speak in the Church. ' ' As far as 
the prohibition of this passage, and I. Tim. 2: 11, 12, are 
binding, there can be no question, it seems, that they 
prohibit all kinds of speaking in the Church by women. 
The words of the passages admit of no other meaning. 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 37 

But this is a direct contradiction to the teaching and 
practice of Paul on the general question of woman's 
relation to the Church, and of the general teaching of the 
whole Bible, and hence we are bound to understand the 
prohibition in these passages to be local and temporary, 
on account of the mental and social condition of women 
among the Greeks, and not as a general law binding on 
the Church in all ages. Dr. Whedon evidently under- 
stood this passage in this sense, for on it he remarks : 

"Ask their husbands, with whom, according to the 
Jewish custom, all the education was. According to 
Schoettgen, women were allowed in the rabbinical school, 
but only to hear and never to speak or ask a question. 
Shame, contrary to the existing views of propriety. Just 
as in 11: 14 (where we note) it is a shame for a man to 
wear long hair. When women are so cultured that it is 
not a shame but a beauty for a woman to speak, then the 
prohibition ceases because the reason for it ceases, just as 
the prohibition of long hair to man ceases." 

It is evident that Dr. Whedon understood the prohi- 
bition here to include all kinds of public speaking, just 
as Drs. Barnes and Hodge did, but he understood it to 
be temporary and local, and not a general law binding on 
the whole Church for all time. No other construction 
can be put upon his language. 

But if the prohibition of speaking was temporary and 
local, then the subjection and obedience must be temporary 
and local also, for the silence is enforced by the obedi- 
ence ! ' ' They are not permitted to speak, ' ' because 
" they are under obedience." One part of this passage 
can not be temporary, and the other perpetual in its 
binding force — both parts must go together. 

But the objector may say, " Both the obedience and 



38 Admissio7i of Women to the General Conference. 

the silence are commanded by the L,aw, and, therefore, 
they are both perpetually binding." 

i. To this I reply, that " the law " here referred to, 
Gen. 3 : 16, is not perpetually binding ; but was a curse 
imposed as a penalty for sin, and must be removed 
under the gospel, as we shall see directly. 

2. The prohibition of women praying or prophesy- 
ing without the veil on is enforced by reasons that 
abide, and yet all admit that this was but a temporary 
and local prohibition, and not a universally binding law. 
This being the case, if the reasons for the obedience and 
the silence here were permanent, by the same rule Paul 
follows in ch. n the prohibition here may be only tem- 
porary and local. . It is evident, therefore, that there is 
nothing in the passage itself that makes it necessary that 
we should understand it as a law, universally binding, 
but there is strong evidence in it to prove that it was in- 
tended only to be temporary and local in its application ; 
while the known practice of the apostle Paul, and the 
general teachings of both the Old and New Testaments 
absolutely demand that it shall be so understood. 

The Doctor's third and last passage is I. Tim. 
2: 11-14 : 

" 1 1 . L,et your women learn in silence with all sub- 
jection. 

"12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to 
usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 

11 13. For Adam was first formed, then Kve. 

" 14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman 
being deceived was in the transgression." 

Here the Doctor stops, but we will quote the whole 
passage : 

11 15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in child- 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 39 

bearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness 
with sobriety." 

On this passage he makes no remark whatever, ex- 
cept to say, as he introduces it : " The third conclusive 
passage is " : 

On this passage we remark : 

1. Verse 11 enjoins " silence and subjection " on 
the women, just as verse 34, in I. Cor. 14, does; the pro- 
hibition is the same in both passages. 

2. But verse 12 specifically prohibits all teaching on 
the part of women, and completely cuts off Dr. Buckley's 
plea that { ' praying and prophesying are plainly not pro- 
hibited, but such discussion and action as would conflict 
with the command to be in obedience. ' ' The word here 
translated ' Ho teach,' } (6i6aSKeir) didaskein, means to teach , 
and it never means anything else in the New Testament, 
and it is used to express the teaching that is done by 
preaching the Gospel. There is no way to evade the 
force and meaning of this word. It prohibits women 
from doing that sort of teaching that is done in prophe- 
sying and preaching as evangelists, both of which Dr. 
Buckley admits that Paul recognized and permitted by 
women. Yet this passage positively prohibits women 
from teaching, an office and work inseparable from that 
of the prophet or evangelist. Now we know that the 
general law of the New Testament does permit women 
both to prophesy and to teach as evangelists; this Dr. 
Buckley admits. Now, if this passage is understood as a 
general law, then there is inevitably a conflict and con- 
tradiction of general laws in the New Testament. But 
this can not be. But how shall we reconcile this specific 
prohibition with the general law permitting the very 
thing here prohibited ? There is but one way under the 



40 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

sun to reconcile them, and avoid contradiction, and that 
is, to understand this as a specific prohibition, affecting 
only the Greek Churches over which Timothy was ap- 
pointed, for specific reasons, not here assigned, but by 
both Paul and Timothy understood, and to be only lo- 
cally and temporarily binding. This obviates the con- 
tradiction, and this alone can do it ; for the very thing 
Paul here says he ' ' suffers not a woman ' ' to do, he did 
in other places, and under other circumstances suffer 
women to do, and the whole Scriptures of both Testa- 
ments suffer them to do the same. Paul here prohibits 
women from teaching or exercising authority over men, 
such as is implied in teaching, but he does elsewhere 
permit both, hence his prohibition here must be local and 
not general. This prohibition is enforced by the same 
fact that the prohibition of women praying or prophe- 
sying with head uncovered is, the priority of man in 
creation. But notwithstanding this, that prohibition was 
local and temporary \ and so is this. 

But what does verse 15 mean, which Dr. Buckley 
fails to quote? "Notwithstanding she shall be saved 
in child-bearing, " etc. It certainly means something. 
What is the woman to be saved from in child-bearing, 
and in what sense is she saved in child-bearing? 

It will not be contended that simple child-bearing has 
any saving efncac}^. Neither will it be contended that 
the woman who bears children will have any better chance 
of salvation tlian the one who does not bear them. Ordi- 
nary child-bearing, then, can not be meant. The literal 
rendering of the passage is : " But she shall be saved 
through the child-bearing. " The child-bearing here 
must mean the bearing of the child, who is "the seed of 
the woman" — borne by woman without the help of man — 



Admission of Women to the General Conference, 41 

the Lord Jesus. But what is she to be saved from, 
through the child-bearing ? So far as salvation from 
sin in this life, and salvation in heaven is concerned, 
woman is no more saved, and in no other sense than is 
man "through the child-bearing. " Neither Timothy 
nor any other of the Apostolic Christians doubted the 
salvation of woman through Christ, from sin here, and 
in heaven hereafter ; and it is hardly to be supposed that 
Paul would here lay down so solemnly, a truth that was 
universally accepted. But this is a special salvation for 
women " through the child- bearing." Saved, here, can 
only mean saved from the curse imposed on woman for 
her sin, and that through "the child-bearing " of woman 
this curse of subjection imposed upon her, and of which 
Paul is here speaking, shall be removed and in this sense 
" she shall be saved through the child-bearing. " This 
makes the whole passage harmonious, and makes it har- 
monize with the general teaching of the word of God, 
while any other interpretation gives a saving efficacy to 
child-bearing which the Scriptures nowhere sanction. 

We must not forget that the apostles always enjoined 
obedience to the laws and customs of the country upon 
all classes, whether the laws were good or bad, for con- 
science' sake, that the name of Christ should not be blas- 
phemed or dishonored. This enjoining of obedience to 
law did not give divine sanction to the law. The apos- 
tles, and Apostolic Christians had nothing to do with the 
making or changing of the law, they could only obey 
where conscience did not forbid on moral or religious 
grounds, and when they could not obey the}^ were to 
patiently suffer the penalty for Christ's sake. The laws 
and customs of the Greeks made woman subject to man, 
and did not permit her to take part in the discussions of 



42 Admission of Women to the General Co?iference. 

the public assemblies, and Paul and Peter simply teach 
the Greek women to obey the laws and customs of their 
country and nation, that Christ might be honored in 
them, and that their husbands might be saved " through 
their chaste conversation coupled with fear." Bishop 
Ninde in his address at the Chicago Training School hit 
it exactly. He says: 

44 Another happy condition of our times is an enlarged 
conception of woman and her work. ' What shall we 
do with woman?' That is the question the ages have 
been asking ; sometimes in a meaningless way — some- 
times with a profound earnestness. Who ever asked 
1 What shall we do with man ?' It is assumed that his 
functions and sphere have been predetermined. That 
he can be safety trusted, in a general way, to follow his 
instincts. But woman is dependent ; her instincts are 
capricious. It is unsafe to trust her. A social revolu- 
tion or frightful cataclysm of some sort might ensue 
without the most careful denning of her sphere, and to 
that traditional sphere she must be held by the powerful 
constraint of public sentiment. With all our gallantry 
we have treated woman shabbily. We have dishonored 
her by not giving her the highest honor. We have un- 
wittingly degraded her by not raising her to the loftiest 
grade. What we need is the wider prevalence of a true 
Christian charity. And what we rejoice in, is a mani- 
fest advance in our treatment of woman. The coarse 
and brutal cruelties which feminine weakness sometimes 
endured are no longer tolerated, and the chivalry which 
has dawned upon the thoughts of our day, believes in 
woman ; trusts her intuitions as divine ; gives them the 
largest liberty ; feels that the truest wisdom is not to sup- 
press or counsel her to repress the outgoings and out- 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 43 

Teachings of her best self, but to study her nature, and 
thus learn the revealings of Him who is our all, and 
through all, and in all. 

"A strange misunderstanding of Scriptures, based on 
false rules of interpretation, had given woman, intellect- 
ually and functionally, an inferior position to man. In 
that sphere which of all others, woman is fitted to adorn 
and dominate, she had been cruelly forced into a subordi- 
nate place, and that condition of passive pupilage was 
well nigh unquestioned, till the hammers of the Wes- 
leyan revival broke her manacles and gave her the largest 
spiritual freedom. It is a grave critical mistake to con- 
strue certain Scriptures, which have but a temporary 
adaptation, as the law for all ages with their vastly 
changed conditions. The safe method is to seek the 
deeper meaning of these more radical passages, which 
describe our nature in its essential and unchangeable 
features ; and here we find no unhappy discriminations 
against woman. The spirit of these deeper truths is 
gaining the assent of our best biblical scholars. The 
sentiment of the Christian masses is rapidly rising to 
their level, and the enfranchisement and elevation of our 
Christian sisterhood will soon become complete. The 
crown of the age is the generous — rather, I should say, 
the righteous — parity it gives to woman. Parity in the 
churches— parity in the schools — parity in the learned 
professions — parity wherever her physical and mental 
conditions fit her to work." 

—Chicago Training School Address. 

It is evident that Bishop Ninde understands the pas- 
sages in Paul's epistles, on which Dr. Buckley relies to 
prove woman's subjection, as we do — that they were only 
temporarily binding, because of conditions then existing 



44 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

which have now happily passed away, while the gen- 
eral teaching of the Scriptures assert the ' ' Parity of 
woman in the Churches." The Doctor will have to 
take the Bishop in hand for ' ' disparaging the apostles and 
making void the Word of God " / / 

We must not forget that the prohibitions in these 
passages from the epistles of Paul, all refer to the con- 
gregatio?i, and not to any ecclesiastical body like a Gen- 
eral Conference or General Assembly. It is not a pro- 
hibition of women being elected to a representative, law- 
making body, that is contained in these passages; but a 
prohibition of speaking and teaching in the assemblies of 
public worship, and subjection in the church, that is, 
the congregation. If the interpretation of Dr. Buckley 
is correct, then the whole practice of Methodism is un- 
scriptural, for the practice of Methodism from the begin- 
ning has been to permit women to speak in the public 
assemblies. But this is not all. The law of Methodism 
gives to woman an equal voice with man in the govern- 
ment and discipline of the congregation, and permits 
her to hold the offices of Class Reader, Steward, Trustee, 
and Superintendent of Sunday Schools, and teacher and 
officer in the Sunday Schools; thus putting her in au- 
thority over the men in the congregation — the very thing 
condemned by Paul and the very thing that he here claims 
is unscriptural and anti-Christian. If he is right in his 
interpretation of Paul, women are not only shut out of 
the General Conference by the Holy Scriptures, but they 
are shut out of the Quarterly Conference, and out of 
every official position in the congregation and Sunday 
School. There is no escaping this conclusion, and 
when " the light is let in," on the end sought by the op- 
position to the admission of women to the General Con- 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 45 

ference, we see it means that the laws and customs of 
Methodism must be reformed _ so as to make them har- 
monize with the teaching of St. Paul, which excludes 
women from all official positions in the Church, and from 
all exercise of authority as teachers and officers. In- 
deed, we are not left to logical deduction on this point, for 
Dr. Hawley, Dr. Buckley's most able assistant in de- 
fense of the doctrine of woman's subjection "in the 
family, the Church and the state," in the Christian Ad- 
vocate of November 20th, declares that the law of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church which permits women to 
hold the offices of Class Leader, Steward, Trustee, etc., 
is unscriptural. He says: 

' ' But strange to say, in these modern times of much 
boasted progress in fundamentals of Church polity and 
Christian duties, not only are women eligible to the 
offices of stewards, leaders and trustees, where, con- 
trary TO THE GENIUS OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE NA- 
TURE OF THINGS, THEY CAN RULE OVER MEN, but they 

from this vantage-ground, are seeking to be prime legis- 
lators and ordained ministers." O temporal 

This li lets the light in " on the subject ! Not only 
must women be kept out of the General Conference, but 
the law of the Church, which is " contrary to the genius 
of Christianity and the nature of things, ' ' must be changed ! 
and the women of Methodism must be taught the lesson 
of subjection and silence ! No more women class leaders, 
stewards, trustees, or Sunday School superintendents. 
This is all ' ' contrary to the genius of Christianity 
and the nature of things. ' ' This is the gravest charge 
we ever heard brought against the Methodist Episcopal 
Church ! The General Conference which passed the law, 
which is " contrary to the genius of Christianity and the 



46 Admission of Women to the Ge?ieral Conference. 

nature of things, ' ' must have been composed of very illit- 
erate and thick-headed fellows, and their Conferences 
ought to have expelled every one of them for high trea- 
son against the Word of God ! ! But ridiculous as is this 
statement of Dr. Hawley, it is the only logical conclu- 
sion that can be reached from his standpoint. He has 
this, at least, in his favor, he is consistent with himself, 
and he honestly avows the logical sequence of his posi- 
tion. Is the Church prepared to accept Dr. Hawley 's 
conclusion? It must, or deny his premise. We have 
reached a point in this controversy where we can not stand 
still. We must either go forward or backward— either 
admit women to the General Conference, or put them out 
of the Quarterly Conference, and deprive them of all 
voice in the discipline and government of the congrega- 
tion. The only question now before the Church is, Shall 
the wheels of progress roll forward or backward ? They 
can not stand still. The position of cme party to this 
controversy must necessarily land woman in the General 
Conference, while that of the other must necessarily put 
her out of the Quarterly Conference, and take from her all 
official position in the Church, and all authority to hold 
office or teach in the Sunday School. Which side of the 
question will the Church take ? 

But this is not all. The Presbyterian bodies, with 
all their conservatism on this question, have been as 
guilty as the Methodist Episcopal Church in enacting 
laws "contrary to the genius of Christianity and the 
nature of things," for in the election of elders and trus- 
tees, and in calling a pastor, the women vote on equal 
terms with the men, and as the women are in the ma- 
jority, they " ride over the men." Our Baptist and Con- 
gregationalist brethren are still more guilty, for with them 



AdmissioJi of Women to the General Conference. 47 

the congregation is the supreme legislative body, and 
in it, in all matters of government and discipline, the 
women have an equal voice with the men ! Verily, 
evangelical Christianity has fallen into a bad way, when 
all the leading denominations have gone ' ' contrary to 
the genius of Christianity and the nature of things" in 
putting woman on an equality with man in the gov- 
ernment of the congregation — the very thing Paul pro- 
hibited according to Dr. Hawley and Dr. Buckley ! No 
doubt these champions of the right of man to rule the 
Church, as they see how the modern churches have de- 
parted from the Apostolic rule, deep down in their souls 
are crying, " O for a Luther to sound the trumpet call 
of Reformation to deliver the Church from the govern- 
ment of woman ! ' ' 



CHAPTER III. 

Thk Teaching of The Old Testament in Regard 
to Woman's Position in the Family and 
the Church. 

Was woman created the equal of man, or was she 
created subject to him ? L,et us turn to the story of crea- 
tion, as recorded in Genesis i: 26-28. 

" 26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, 
after our likeness : and let them have dominion over the 
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the 
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping 
thing that creepeth upon the earth. 

''27. So God created man in his own image, in the 
image of God created he him ; male and female created 
he them. 

"28. And God blessed them, and God said unto 
them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, 
and subdue it : and have dominion over the fish of the 
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living 
thing that moveth upon the earth." 

.Here joint dominion is given to male and female over 
all the earth, and not a hint of woman's subjection to 
man ; but to them is given dominion. In Chap. 2, 
where we have the particular story of the creation of 
woman in verse 18, God says : "I will make him a help 
meet for him." It is not a servant, or an inferior but an 
equal, one "meet" for him." In verses 23 and 24, we 
read : 

" And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, 
(48) 



Admission of Women to the Ge?ieral Conference. 49 

and flesh of my flesh : She shall be called Woman, 
because she was taken out of man. 

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his 
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife : and they shall 
be one flesh." 

There is not the slightest hint here of the subjection 
of woman, but on the other hand there is oneness. ' ' They 
two shall be one flesh" and Jesus says: "Wherefore 
they are no more twain, but one flesh." Matt. 19: 6. If 
the two are one, surely one can not be subject to the 
other. The very nature of the marriage relation, as set 
forth in its institution, in connection with the story of 
creation, precludes the idea of the subjection of the 
woman to the man. They are one and not two, and 
therefore one part of a whole can not be subject to the 
other part. Our Church has long held this absolute 
equality of man and wife, by taking the words "serve 
and obey" out of the woman's vow in the marriage cere- 
mony, and using the same language in the vow of the 
woman that it does in the vow of the man. I suppose 
Drs. Buckley and Hawley will insist on restoring these 
words, so expressive of the subjection of woman, to the 
marriage vow of woman, in our Discipline. 

The first hint we have of woman's subjection to 
man in the Bible, is Gen. 3:16, in the curse pronounced 
on Eve for inducing Adam to sin ; and it reads : "And 
thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule 
over thee." But this very passage proves that " in the 
beginning it was not so "; for if woman had been made 
subject to man in Creation, and he had been given power 
to ' ' rule over ' ' her, then she could not have been made 
subject to him as a penalty for sin. As has already been 
shown, man's headship and priority in Creation, can not 



50 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

be pleaded as the ground and right of his power to ' ' rule 
over " woman, for he had both before the fall, and they 
gave him no such right or power. Whatever right man 
has to " rule over " woman, was given him by the curse 
imposed on woman as a penalty for her sin. This is as 
clear as a sunbeam, and can not be called in question by 
any one. The curse or penalty for sin included spiritual, 
physical and social loss. The spiritual and physical fell 
alike on man and woman, but the social fell on woman 
alone, and reduced her from an equal to a servant. 
Jesus Christ came to remove the curse imposed by sin, 
and to give to the human race what it lost by the fall. 
This is the very import of redemption. He came to 
remove the whole curse, not a pari of it. The spiritual 
loss is restored in the regeneration and sanctification of 
the spiritual nature of man. The physical loss will be 
restored in the resurrection of the body, and its conse- 
quent immortality. The social loss — woman's subjec- 
tion to man, must be restored by the social uplifting 
power of the Gospel in this life, and the social salvation 
of the Gospel will not be complete until it restores 
woman to the social position she enjoyed as man's equal 
before the fall. Many long steps have been taken in this 
direction by the social uplifting power of the Gospel 
already ; but woman's social redemption is not yet com- 
plete. Her lowest degradation and slavery was reached 
in the darkest heathenism, and her highest exaltation 
has been reached under the Gospel ; and this social up- 
lifting of woman will continue until its work is complete. 
The social status of woman under the Old Testament, 
was a vast improvement on her social status under hea- 
thenism. In the family the mother is placed on an equal- 



Admission of Wome?i to the Ge?ieral Conference. 51 

ity of honor and authority with the father. The Fifth 
Commandment of the Decalogue reads: 

" Honor thy father and thy mother : that thy days 
may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God 
giveth thee." Here children are commanded to honor 
their mother, equally with their father. In Lev. 19: 3, 
we read : ' ' Ye shall fear every man his mother, and 
his father! " Here the mother is put first. In Prov. 
1: 8, we read : 

1 ' My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and for- 
sake not the law of thy mother." In Prov. 6: 20, we read: 

" My son, keep thy father's commandment, and for- 
sake not the law of thy mother. ' ' From these passages 
it is evident that under the Old Testament, in family 
government the mother was a law-maker as well as the 
father, and she was entitled to equal honor from her chil- 
dren, and they were equally bound to obey her laws. 
These passages are wholly incompatible with the idea of 
the subjection of woman in the family. 

In the Church under the Old Testament, women were 
called to the prophetic office along with men, and that 
office carried with it authority to teach, and to declare the 
law of the Lord. Women filled the prophetic office from 
the days of Moses to the coming of Christ, indifferently 
along with men. Miriam, the sister of Moses, was a 
prophetess, and the Lord associated her with her brothers, 
Moses and Aaron, in leading Israel out of Egypt. In 
Micah, 6:4, we read : 

' ' For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and 
redeemed thee out of the house of servants ; and I sent 
before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam." In Exodus, 
15:20, she is called " the prophetess." But Dr. Buckley 
tries to break the force of this fact, by saying the Lord 



52 Admission of Women to the General Co7iference. 

smote her with leprosy for aspiring to equality with 
Moses : This is a false putting of the case. Her punish- 
ment with leprosy, grew out of a family quarrel between 
her and Aaron, and Moses, on account of Moses' Ethi- 
opian wife. In Num. 12: 1, we read : 

"And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses 
because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married : 
for he had married an Ethiopian woman." This was the 
origin of the whole difficulty, and it was for this cause 
that she was smitten with leprosy. But this does not set 
aside the fact that she was a prophetess, and that the 
Lord sent her along with Moses and Aaron, in bringing 
the children of Israel out of Egypt. David was a 
prophet, and yet was guilty of a much graver offense 
than Miriam was ; but that does not set aside the fact 
that before his fall, and after his restoration, he was a 
prophet of God. 

In Psalm 68:11, speaking of the deliverance of the 
children of Israel from Egyptian bondage, and the giving 
of the Law, our version reads : ' ' The Lord gave the 
word : great was the company of those that published it." 
The Revised Version translates it: "The Lordgiveth 
the word ; the women that publish the tidings are a 
great host" Dr. Adam Clarke says: "The literal 
translation of this passage is, ' Of female preachers there 
was a great host.' " This shows that there were multi- 
tudes of prophetesses, throughout the Mosaic Dispen- 
sation . 

Huldah was a prophetess, and she stood at the head 
of the prophetic order in the reign of Josiah, and was his 
spiritual adviser, and from her position at the court, and 
dwelling ' ' in the college, " it is evident that she filled the 
position of President of the College, which was a school 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 53 

of the prophets, that is, a theological seminary ! ! What 
would Dr. Buckley or Dr. Hawley think if Mrs. Willing or 
Miss Willard, or some other of the scores of our gifted and 
consecrated women should dwell in Heck Hall, and pre- 
side over Garrett Biblical Institute ! ! They would surely 
think that it was ' ' contrary to the genius of Christianity, 
and the nature of things ' ' ; and I doubt not that there were 
learned and grave, uninspired doctors of Divinity in the 
days of Josiah who thought the same thing ; but Jehovah 
who inspired Huldah differed with them, just as the Word 
of God, and the Holy Spirit who calls the holy women of 
our time to preach the Gospel, differ with our learned 
doctors ! ! 

In the State, women were called to important positions 
of leadership and office as the examples of Mariam and 
Huldah show. But Deborah, the prophetess, was called 
of God to the head of the State, as well as of the prophetic 
order. See Judges 4: 4 and 5. 

"And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, 
she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the 
palm tree of Deborah, between Ram ah and Bethel in 
Mount Ephraim : and the children of Israel came up to 
her for judgment." There was nothing in the constitu- 
tion of Israel, to prevent a woman from holding the 
highest office in the State, nor was it ' ' contrary to the 
genius of the Mosaic Institute, and the nature of things," 
or God violated "the genius " of the Hebrew Church, and 
the nature of things, when He called a woman to the 
head of the nation ! ! 

But we are told hy the woman subjection ists, that 
this was an exceptional case. But that does not help the 
matter at all. We ask, will God make exceptions to His 
own law, which are ' ' contrary to its very genius, and the 



54 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

nature of things ' ' ? We can not believe that He will. 
We are under no necessity to adopt such an absurdity to 
sustain our cause ! ! 

But Dr. Buckley gravely informs us, with all the 
authority of an oracle, that the reason the Almighty 
called Deborah to the head of the nation, was, that 
there was not a man fit for the position in all Israel ! 
He is a very wise man, but just how he found out this 
fact, he does not tell us ! ! Certainly he does not find it 
' ' in what is written ' ' except in his own writings, for the 
Bible is silent as to the why God called her to the head 
of the nation. It simply gives the fact, without at- 
tempting to give the reason for the fact. But the exigen- 
cies of his case compel him to invent a reason for the 
Divine procedure ! This looks a little like presumption ! ! ! 
But he goes further, and says, if ever there should come 
a time in the history of Methodism, when the men are 
all so hopelessly backslidden that there can be none 
found fit to go to the General Conference, then he would 
favor the election of women ! ! It is indeed kind in the 
Doctor to grant us even this small concession ! ! But 
seriously, his reply can not be dignified with any other 
title than that of a very weak and foolish quibble. 

Such, in brief, was the status of woman in the family, 
the Church, and the State under the Old Testament. 
Under the New Testament there is no abridgment of 
rights and privileges, but an enlargement. It is "con- 
trary to the genius of Christianity, and the nature of 
things," that under the Gospel there should be an abridg- 
ment of woman's rights and privileges. The thing is 
preposterous. Whatever woman possessed under the 
Old, she must possess under the New, in an enlarged 
degree, and there must be rights and privileges conferred 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 55 

under the New, not possessed under the Old. This 
brings us to the consideration of woman's status under 
the New Testament which will form the subject of our 
next chapter. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Woman's Position in the Family and the Church 
Under the New Testament. 

The first glimpse we catch of woman in the New Test- 
ament is, God puts upon her the honor, without the in- 
tervention or help of man, of bringing into the world the 
World's Redeemer. The greatest honor God has ever put 
on a human being, he put upon a woman, and in this 
honor, man had no part. If woman was first in the trans- 
gression, she certainty was first, and most important in the 
work of redemption. It does seem to us that this great 
fact ought to have some weight in fixing the New Testa- 
ment status of woman. 

Next, we meet with three prominent women, the 
Virgin Mary, Elizabeth and Anna, upon whom the Lord 
did unquestionably pour the spirit and gift of prophecy ; 
see Luke i: 41-55, and 2: 36-38. Anna is expressly 
called a prophetess, and by the spirit of prophecy, she at 
once perceived that the babe of the Virgin was the Christ 
of God, and immediately proclaimed Him as such ' ' to all 
them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." 

Next we find Jesus preaching to the woman of Samaria 
and after revealing Himself to her, as He had not yet, even 
unto His chosen disciples, He sent her to proclaim Him to 
the people of her city, and through her the whole city 
was converted to Christ. 

Next, we find among His disciples, and constant at- 
tendants, a company of faithful women, who stood by Him 
in all His trials, and ministered to Him of their substance; 

(56) 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 57 

forsaking Him not in His last agony but faithful to Him 
to the end, forsaking not the cross until His body was 
taken from it, and deposited in Joseph's tomb. Their lov- 
ing devotion brought them first to the sepulcher ' ' early on 
the first da}- of the week/' and to them was first broken 
the glad tidings of His resurrection. It was a woman, 
Mary Magdalene, to whom was given the honor of first 
seeing and speaking to the risen Lord, and He made her 
the first evangel of His resurrection. 

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost fell on tne 
women as well as the men, and the cloven tongues of fire 
sat upon them, as they did upon the men, and they spoke 
with tongues as did the men. Luke tells us, that the 
eleven, "with the women and the mother of Jesus, and 
his brethren," "all continued with one accord in prayer 
and supplication," and he informs us that " the number 
of names together were about a hundred and twenty." 
Acts 1 : 13, 14. In Acts 2: 1-4, we read : 

" 1 . And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, 
they were all with one accord in one place. 

"2. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven 
as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house 
where the}- were sitting. 

"3. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues 
like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 

' '4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, 
and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit 
gave them utterance." 

On this passage Dr. Whedon remarks : 

' ' All with one accord — the same one accord as in 1 : 
14, of the same body enumerated in 1 : 15; namely, the 
about one hundred and twenty names representative of the 
New Testament Church. * * * Had Israel, indeed, ac- 



58 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

cepted Jesus, (see note on i: 7), the Spirit, the fire, and 
the Shekinah (note on vii: 2) would no doubt have their 
centre, as of old, in the ancient house of God. The 
miraculous tongues would have belonged not to twelve, 
or a hundred and twenty only, but to more than a hun- 
dred and twenty thousand. All Israel, the chosen seed, 
would have been Christ's holy apostles." 

On verse third he remarks : 

"3. Unto them — to the 'about one hundred and 
twenty' present. Cloven tongues — The tongues ap- 
peared, then settled one upon the head of each person ; 
each tongue being cloven, that is, undivided at the root, 
but flaring into several points at the extremity. By this 
terminal division was beautifully symbolized the variety 
of dialect spoken by each tongue." It is evident, from 
the narrative, that Dr. Whedon is right in his statement 
that the Holy Ghost fell on the whole company, and that 
the "cloven tongues" sat upon each individual of the 
company, and that they all — both men and women — im- 
mediately ' ' began to speak with tongues as the Spirit 
gave them utterance." This is further evident from the 
language of Peter, in explanation of this wonderful phe- 
nomenon. 

"14. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted 
up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and 
all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, 
and hearken to my words : 

"15. For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing 
it is but the third hour of the day. 

"16. But this is that which was spoken by the 
prophet Joel ; 

"17. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith 
God, I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh: and your 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 59 

sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your 
young men shall see visions, and your old men shall 
dream dreams : 

"18. And on my servants and on my handmaidens 
I will pour out in those days of my Spirit ; and they 

SHALL PROPHESY." 

Evidently the women of the company were prophesy- 
ing and speaking with tongues, or this could not have 
been the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. It was this 
very fact that prompted Peter to quote the prophecy as 
the explanation of the strange phenomenon which had 
filled the people with wonder. Here, at the opening of 
the New Dispensation, God makes no difference between 
the men and women, but bestows on both alike the spirit 
and gift of prophecy, and an inspired apostle quotes 
an inspired prophet, declaring that this shall be the 
order of the New Dispensation through all coming- 
time. In perfect accord with this beginning on the day 
of Pentecost, and Joel's prophecy quoted by Peter, we 
find women throughout the apostolic age prophesying. 
Philip, the evangelist, had four daughters "that did 
prophesy," and Paul speaks of the women prophesying 
in the Church at Corinth as though it was a common 
practice. 

Now, the only question is, what does prophesy mean 
in the New Testament? Dr. Edward Robinson in his 
Bible Encyclopaedia, says, ' ' The verb nibba which we 
translate to prophesy, is of very great extent. Sometimes 
it signifies to foretell what is to come ; at other times to 
be inspired to speak from God. ' ' 

Webster defines " prophesy " : " 1. To utter predic- 
tions ; to make declarations of events to come. 

"2. {Script.) To instruct in religious doctrines; to 



60 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

interpret or explain Scripture, or religious subjects, to 
preach, to exhort. Ezek. 37: 7." 

This second definition given by Webster, and which 
he gives as the Scriptural meaning, is undoubtedly the 
general New Testament meaning of the word. Paul cer- 
tainly gives it this meaning in the I. Cor. 14: 3-4, where 
he says: "3. But he that prophesieth, speaketh unto 
men, to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 

' ' 4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edi- 
fieth himself; but he that prophesieth, edifieth the 
church." 

This passage is decisive and settles the New Testa- 
ment meaning of the word, which is simply to preach, 
exhort, or speak to edification. But we are met here by the 
objector to women exercising this gift in the Church 
to-day, by saying, " The women who prophesied in the 
time of the apostles were inspired, and if the women who 
preach to-day can prove that they are inspired, why then, 
we have no objection to their preaching ! ! " But this 
can be dignified by no higher term than that of quibbling, 
for the greater always includes the less. If women were 
inspired of God to preach, then of course, the lower gift 
of an ordinary call of God is included, and can not be 
denied. God would not grant to woman special and ex- 
traordinary inspiration to preach the Gospel and then 
deny her the ordinary call, or moving by the Holy Ghost 
to preach. Such a case is not suppossable. The fact that 
He did give to her the higher call, is proof positive that 
He gives the lower. 

' ' But again : The prophesying of the daughters and 
handmaidens," is to continue as long as that of the " sons 
and servants." The extraordinar3~ inspiration of the 
Holy Ghost ceased with the Apostolic Age, but the ordi- 



Admission of Women to the General Confere?ice. 61 

nary moving of the Holy Ghost to preach abides, and all 
classes who were then inspired, are now moved by the 
Hory Ghost to preach. 

The New Testament abundantly teaches that women 
were called of God to the prophetic or teaching office, and 
recognized as such by the apostles, and Dr. Buckley 
admits that Paul recognized women as evangelists f This 
puts them into ministry by apostolic authority, and he 
can not get them out! In Ephesians, 4:11-12, Paul 
says : 

"11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, 
prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and 
teachers ; 

"12. For the perfecting of the saints, for The 
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of 
Christ." 

Here the offices of Prophet, and Evangelist, be- 
long to the order of the ministry, and are part of its work. 
It must be noticed too, that the prophetic office stands 
next in order to the apostolic, and the evangelistic stands 
next to it, and both of these are above the pastoral and 
teaching offices. Into these two higher grades of the 
ministerial order, next to the apostolic, women were put 
by the Divine order, and so recognized by the Apostle 
Paul, Dr. Buckley himself being judge. Now if women 
were put into the two highest permanent grades of 
the ministry recognized in the New Testament, by the ap- 
pointment and inspiration of God, and were so recog- 
nized by the Apostle Paul, by what rule of logic, ethics, or 
common sense are we going to exclude them from the 
lower? In I. Cor. 12:28, Paul enumerates the offices 
or grades of the ministry again, and he says : 

" And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, 



62 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers." In this enumera- 
tion, evangelists and pastors are included in the office of 
teachers. But in both places he puts prophets next to 
apostles, thus making the prophet office the highest per- 
manent grade of the ministry. Remember this is the 
same Paul who says in I. Cor. 14:34-35, " L,et your 
women keep silence in the churches : * * * for it is 
a shame for women to speak in the church ' ' ; and who 
says in I. Tim. 2:11-12, " Let the woman learn in silence 
with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, 
nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in 
silence ! ! " 

Is there any further evidence necessary to prove 'to 
any reflecting mind that these passages, like I. Cor. 1 1 : 
4-15, were designed only to be temporary and local in 
their prohibitions, for specific reasons, and not the gen- 
eral law of the Church, which here and throughout both 
Testaments, puts women into the prophetic office, the 
highest permanent grade of the ministry of the Gospel ? 
If any further evidence is needed, it is furnished in the 
fact that Paul, the same Paul who wrote these prohibi- 
tions, did have women as his fellow- laborers in 
THE GOSPEL. 

In Phil. 4: 3, he says : " And I entreat thee also, true 
yoke-fellow, help those women which labored with me 
in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fel- 
low-laborers, whose names are in the book of life." 

On this passage Dr. Adam Clarke remarks : 

" Both in the Grecian and Asiatic countries, women 
were kept much secluded ; and it was not likely that 
even the apostles had much opportunity of conversing 
with them ; it was therefore necessary that they should 
have some experienced Christian women with them, who 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 63 

could have access to the families, and preach Jesus to the 
female part of them. The apostle tells us that certain 
women labored with him in the gospel ; and were assist- 
ants to others also who had assisted him." 

No other conclusion can be. reached from the reading 
of this passage, than that the women referred to, were as 
he calls them, his " fellow- laborers in the gospel ;" that 
is, that they, like Clement, and the other fellow- laborers, 
preached, with him, the gospel of Christ. 

In Rom. 16:3, Paul says: "Greet Priscilla and 
Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus." 

The word here translated "helpers" is " sunergous,"" 
which is literally and properly "fellow-laborers,'" and is so 
translated in Phil. 4: 3. Priscilla is here called " a fel- 
low-laborer in Christ Jesus," that is, one who labored in 
the same capacity and work in Christ Jesus that he did. 
Inverse 12 he says: "Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa 
who labor in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which 
labored much in the Lord." 

On this passage Dr. A. Clarke remarks : 

" Tryphena and Tryphosa. Two holy women, who it 
seems were assistants to the apostle in his work, proba- 
bly by exhorting, visiting the sick, etc. Persis was another 
woman, who, it seems, excelled the preceding ; for of 
her it is said, she labored much in the Lord. We learn 
from this, that Christian women, as well as men 

LABORED IN THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD. In those 

times of simplicity, all persons, whether men or women, 
who had received the knowledge of the truth, believed it 
to be their duty to propagate it to the uttermost of their 
power. Many have spent much useless labor in endeav- 
oring to prove that these women did not preach. That 
there were some prophetesses, as well as prophets in the 



64 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

Christian church, we learn ; and that a woman might pray 
or prophesy, provided she had her head covered, we know ; 
and that whoever prophesied, spoke unto others to edifica- 
tion, exhortation, and comfort, St. Paul declares I. Cor. 
14: 3. And that no preacher can do more, every person 
must acknowledge ; because to edify, to exhort, and com- 
fort, are the prime ends of the Gospel ministry. If 
women thus prophesied, then women preached." 

There can be no other conclusion reached from these 
passages, than that in the Apostolic Church women as 
well as men, preached the Gospel, and that this was the 
common practice, and that it was only forbidden where 
the social customs and laws of the country, as among the 
Greeks, forbade women of good repute from speaking in 
the public assemblies. It seems to us, that nothing can 
be clearer from the New Testament than this. 

Women not only took part in the ministry of the 
Word, in the Apostolic Church, as we have seen, but 
they held official positions. The female deaconate, of 
which Phebe of Cenchrea was an example, was of Apos- 
tolic origin. On Rom. 16:1., Dr. A. Clarke remarks: 
" Phebe is here termed a servant Siaxorov, a deaconess 0/ 
the Church at Cenchrea. There were deaconesses in the 
primitive church, whose business it was to attend the 
female converts at baptism, to instruct the catechumens, 
or persons who were candidates for baptism ; to visit the 
sick, and those who were in prison; and in short, per- 
form those religious offices for the female part of the 
Church, which could not with propriety be performed by 
men. * * * It is evident that they were ordained to 
their office, by the imposition of the hands of the bishop; 
and the form of prayer used on the occasion is extant in 
the apostolical constitutions. In the tenth or eleventh 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 65 

century, the order became extinct in the Latin church ; 
but continued in the Greek church till the end of the 
twelfth century." 

On the same passage Dr. Whedon remarks: 
" Our translators have hardly done Phebe justice in 
translating diauovov servant, and 7cpoSraris, succourer; for 
the -former is the term for deaconess, or minister, and the 
latter is patroness, being radically the same word as is 
rendered he that ruleth in 1 2 : 8 * * * 

' ' That Phebe was not merely a servitor, doing men- 
ial work, but an official, appears from the patron- 
izing character which Paul assigns her. Hence when, 
no later than A. D. 104, we find that Pliny writes that he 
selected two females who were called (ministrae) minis- 
tresses for torture to extract information against Chris- 
tians, we see no reason to doubt that we have here the apos- 
tolic origin of a female deaconship. ' ' The testimony of Drs. 
Clarke and Whedon is the more important, when it is 
remembered that they both are on the other side, and 
hold to the doctrine of woman's subjection to man in the 
chinch, in the family, and in the state, and they both hold 
that there are functions and offices in the ministry and 
government of the Church from which women are 
prohibited. Yet both of these learned men are compelled 
to admit that women were recognized as ministers of the 
Word, and as office-bearers in the Apostolic Church. 
But this admission is wholly incompatible with the sub- 
jection of women for which they contend. They try to 
limit the ministry of these female ministresses, or 
"preacheresses," as Dr. Whedon calls them, and deacon- 
esses, to the female part of the congregation. They have 
some authority for this in the Post- Apostolic Church, but 
none whatever in the Apostolic. The prophesying or 



66 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

preaching of these female ministers was done in the 
public and promiscuous congregation, as both of these 
learned commentators admit. Then why attempt to 
limit it to the female part of the congregation ? The 
Scriptures of neither the Old nor New Testaments author- 
ize any such statements. Their ministry was a public 
ministry, and while, in fact, they may have given special 
attention to the ministry among the women, owing to 
the social customs which prevented men from doing this, 
their ministry was not confined to the women, any more 
than the men's ministry was confined to the men. 

The facts mentioned in regard to Phebe, the Deaconess, 
proves clearly that her work as a deaconess was a gen- 
eral work of the Church, and in no sense confined to 
the female part of the congregation. But this is but 
another example how the prejudice of ages can blind the 
wisest of men to the plainest teachings of the Word of 
God. The office and work of a deaconess, as its name 
imports, was precisely the same as that of the deacon. 
One was filled by a man, the other by a woman, but the 
office and work was precisely the same. If we can find 
out from the New Testament, what the office and work 
of a deacon was, we can find out what the office and work 
of a deaconess was, just as the office and work of a proph- 
etess was the same as the office and work of a prophet. 

It must not be forgotten that the apostolic deaconesses 
were ordained by the imposition of hands, just as were the 
deacons. Our church authorities are very particular to 
have it understood that our deaconesses are not to be 
ordained ! What is there so sacred about the imposition 
of hands, that our holy women may not have the hands 
of our Bishops put upon their heads, to solemnly set them 
apart to their office and work ? But we are getting nearer 



Admission of Women to the General Confere?ice. 67 

and nearer to the Apostolic practice, and after a while, 
under the leading of the Holy Spirit, we will get to the 
Scriptural and Apostolic method of doing things. 

One of Dr. Buckley's strongest arguments against the 
admission of women into the General Conference is, it 
will be only a stepping-stone to their admission to the 
ministry, and to the Annual Conference. Of course as 
we have seen, there is no connection between the two; 
nor will the one necessarily follow the other. But the 
New Testament most certainly puts them into the minis- 
try, and hence his argument on this point falls to the 
ground. Surely it is not just to refuse to restore to them 
one right, for fear that it might lead to the restoration of 
another! ! But the recognition of their right to preach, 
will by no means necessarily put them into the Annual 
Conferences and the Pastorate. Multitudes of men are 
called of God to preach, who are eminently successful 
in the ministry in leading souls to Christ, who ought not 
to be admitted into the Annual Conferences, or put into 
the Pastorate, and so it was in the days of the Apostles. 

The Church certainly ought to recognize woman's 
call of God to the ministry; but whether they ought to 
be called to the Pastorate will depend upon many other 
things, and the judgment of the Church can certainly be 
trusted to settle this question by the light of the Holy 
Scriptures, under the enlightening influence of the Holy 
Spirit, without refusing to recognize her God-given rights 
lest she might demand others ! This leads us to consider 
woman's right to a voice in the government and discipline 
of the Church, as set forth in the New Testament, which 
will furnish the subject of our next chapter. 



CHAPTER V. 

Woman's Position in the Family and the Church 
Under the New Testament, Continued. 

We come now to the question of woman's right to a 
voice in the government and discipline of the church in 
the New Testament. First we inquire, what is the New 
Testament idea of the church, and what is its meaning 
of the word ? The word Church in the New Testament, 
ordinarily means a congregation of saved persons who 
meet together for worship. It is true that sometimes it 
means the whole body of the redeemed. But always 
where the church is spoken of as exercising government 
or discipline, it is the congregation, and not a number of 
congregations associated together, in which the legisla- 
tive or governing power is committed to a delegated 
body. This is an important fact, that we must not lose 
sight of. Whatever legislative power God has 
given to the church, resides in the congrega- 
tion, AND WAS COMMITTED TO IT BY THE LORD JESUS. 

Now, if we can find out who compose the Church, that 
is the Congregation, we can find out to whom Christ 
committed the governing power of His Church. In 
Matthew 18 : 15-20, we have the general charter of gov- 
ernment and discipline laid down. This passage con- 
tains all the authority Christ ever conferred on His 
church, of government and discipline. It reads : 

" 15. Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against 
thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him 
alone ; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 

(68) 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 69 

" 16. But if he will not hear thee, then take with 
thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three 
witnesses every word may be established. 

''17. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it 
unto the church : but if he neglect to hear thechurch, 
let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. 

"18. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever 
ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 

" 19. Again I say unto you, That if two of you 
shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall 
ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in 
heaven. 

' ' 20. For where two or three are gathered together 
in my name, there am I in the midst of them." 

On this passage Dr. Whedon remarks : 

" We here see that Christ has authorized his Church 
to exist, and to exercise judicial power in order to secure 
her purity and peace. And if she proceeds in the per- 
formance of these duties in temper and process as he pre- 
scribes, she but executes his laws and she will be 
sustained by God himself. But the divine ratification 
follows only when the whole procedure is required by 
and accord with the spirit and law of Christ. The 
binding and loosing, therefore, bestowed upon Peter be- 
long to all collectively. It belongs to no pope or poten- 
tate. It resides in the body of the church." 

Do women compose any part of ' ' the body of the 
Church ? " If so, then a part of the discipline and gov- 
ernment of the Church, yea, a part of the ''judicial 
power" Christ committed to His Church, He committed 
to them, and that right can not be taken from them. Is 
Dr. Whedon right in his interpretation of this passage of 



70 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

Scripture ? If he is, then there is no possible way to 
escape the conclusion that Christ gave to woman a voice 
in the government and discipline of the Church. It is so 
palpable that this is the true interpretation of these 
words of our Lord, that all the great evangelical denom- 
inations of Christendom give to women an equal voice 
with men in the government and discipline of the Con- 
gregation. In the Presbyterian Church in all of its 
branches, the most conservative of all the great evangel- 
ical Churches, the right of the women to be heard, 
and to vote on all matters affecting the congregation* 
such as, the election of ruling elders, trustees, and the 
calling and dismissing of Pastors, is secured inviolate by 
the constitution and laws of the Church. 

In the Congregational and Baptist Churches, where 
each Church has supreme governmental authority, the 
women have an equal voice and vote with the men. 
These Churches retain the simplicity of the original form 
of Church government, and grant to the women their 
rights and privileges secured to them in the original 
charter of rights given by our Lord. 

In the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the congrega- 
tion, the Sunday-school, and the Quarterly Conference, 
which is the representative body of the congregation or 
Charge, women have equal rights to speak, vote, hold 
office, and exercise authority with the men. Now, we 
ask, is this right, or is it all wrong and unscriptural, and 
in the language of Dr. Hawley, "Contrary to the 
genius of Christianity and the nature of things?" If 
the practice of the Universal Church is right, in giving 
to women equal voice and authority in the government 
of the Congregation, which is the original depository of 
all Churchly authority and power, by what right, law, 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 71 

or reason can they be excluded from the delegated bodies, 
which derive all their rights and power of legislation 
from the deposit of power committed to the Congrega- 
tion ? Either the concensus of the whole body of evan- 
gelical Churches in recognizing the right of women to 
exercise governmental authority in the congregation is 
wrong and unscriptural, or women have the right equally 
with the men to sit in the delegated bodies. There is no 
escape from this conclusion, and we would be willing to 
stake the whole case on this single point, and submit it 
to the sober and enlightened judgment of the Church. 

One of Dr. Buckley's objections to the admission of 
women to the General Conference is, that it would be an 
entirely new departure in ecclesiastical legislation, as 
none of the organized Churches have ever admitted 
women to their legislative bodies ! 

Of course by organized Churches, we understand him 
to mean Churches which have delegated legislative 
bodies, such as a General Conference, a General Assem- 
bly, a General Convention, etc., etc. But we ask, Are 
these delegated bodies of Divine, or are they of human 
origin ? The congregation, which holds the original de- 
posit of power, and which recognizes the equality of 
woman with man in the exercise of that power is Divine; 
but the organization of the delegated body which receives 
all of its authority from the deposit given to the Church, 
is human ! Has the human organization a right to set 
aside the authority of the Divine ? Will Dr. Buckley 
tell us what right, authority or power, the human organ- 
ization — the delegated body — has to set aside the rights 
and authority of the Divine organization, or any part 
thereof? It is just as plain as two and two make four, 
that if women have authority equal to men in the gov- 



]2 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

eminent and discipline of the congregation, the Divine 
depository of all Churchly authority and power, when 
that power is transferred to a delegated body, she has 
the same right to be elected and sit as a delegate in the 
delegated body that she had in the congregation. There 
is no way to escape this conclusion, but to deny their 
right in the congregation, and affirm that women con- 
stitute no part of the Church ! ! In all governmental 
and teaching matters, then, the Church is a masculine 
body exclusively, and the fe7nini7ie pronoun she should 
never be applied to the Church, but we must use the 
masculine he ! In speaking of the Church as a teacher, 
we must not say she teaches thus and so ; but we must 
say HE teaches, for he is wholly masculine ! ! ! 

The exercise of discipline in the Apostolic Church 
was done by the whole Church. In I. Cor. 5, we have 
an important case of discipline, and Paul directs the 
Church how to proceed in it. In verses four and five he 
says : 

" In the name of our L,ord Jesus Christ, when ye are 
gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our 
IyOrd Jesus Christ, 

' ' To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruc- 
tion of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day 
of the Lord Jesus. ' ' 

Here the whole Church is gathered together, and the 
" power of Christ " is with them as promised in Matt. 
18: 15-20, and they deliver the sentence that binds the 
offender, and delivers him over to Satan. The power of 
discipline is here recognized as residing in the Church, 
and it was exercised by the Church when assembled to- 
gether, and of course the women exercised the same 
power of discipline that the men did, just as is done in 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 73 

every case of discipline in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church which is tried before the Society. 

On this passage Dr. Whedon remarks : 

' ' In name * * * Christ — this severance of the 
guilty from the Church is performed (1) By the Divine 
authority of Christ ; ( 2 ) By the declaratory authority of 
the Apostle ; and ( 3) By ihe executive authority of the col- 
lective church, IN WHOM THE NORMAL AUTHORITY PERMA- 
NENTLY RESIDES after the miraculous apostolic authority 
is withdrawn. When — When ye and my spirit are gath- 
ered together." 

Here again Dr. Whedon is squarely with us. 

The Apostolic Epistles to the Churches, are all ad- 
dressed to the body of believers, "to the Church," or "to 
the saints," " and to the faithful in Christ Jesus ;" etc., 
etc. These expressions include all the members, not the 
men only. The directions in the epistles are given to the 
whole Church, showing the responsibility of the entire 
membership for the doctrinal and moral purity of the 
Church. 

The first Council or Conference of the Church, and the 
only one recorded in the New Testament, was not a dele- 
gated body, but a gathering together of the whole Church. 
In Acts 15, we have the full account of the entire trans- 
action. Certain persons at Antioch taught that the Gen- 
tile Christians must be circumcised and keep the law of 
Moses, or they could not.be saved. Paul and Barnabas 
contended against these Judaizing teachers, and finally it 
was agreed that the matter should be left to the decision 
of the Apostles and Elders of the Church at Jerusalem. 
The matter was discussed, as we learn from verse 12, in 
the presence of "the multitude," that is the whole 
church. When the conclusion was reached, there were 



74 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

three parties to it, the Apostles, the Elders, and " the 
whole Church." In verses 22 and 23 we read : 

" Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with thk 
wholk church, to send chosen men of their own com- 
pany to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas ; namely, Judas 
surnamed Barnabas, and Silas, chief men among the 
brethren : 

' ' And they wrote letters by them after this manner ; 
The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto 
the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and 
Syria and Cilicia. ' ' 

The objector may say that the term " brethren" here 
excludes all but men ; but if it does in one place in this 
verse, then it must in the other also, and the letter is 
addressed only to men, and then wome?i are not com- 
manded to "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from 
blood, and from things strangled, and from fornica- 
tion," but only the men ! ! The term brethren here, is 
used, as it is throughout the New Testament, in the 
general sense and includes the whole church, both men 
and women ; and the attempt to exclude women on this 
ground would be the veriest quibble, and would turn 
many passages of the New Testament into nonsense. 

But, why have "the elders," and "the whole 
church," associated with the apostles in the decision of 
this question at all ? Did not the apostles themselves 
have power to settle this, and every other question that 
might arise in the church ? Unquestionably they had. 
The procedure of the apostles can be accounted for in 
this case only on the ground that they meant to teach 
the church in all the ages, that in the settlement of every 
great question of discipline and government that might 
arise, ''thk whole church," and not the elders alone, 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 75 

should settle it. This is a precedent set by the apostles 
themselves, and it settles the question of the right of 
' ' the whole church ' ' to have a voice in the settle- 
ment of every question affecting its discipline and gov- 
ernment. By this example, none are to be excluded 
from the Councils of the Church, whether it is a Coun- 
cil of the Congregation, or a delegated bodj^ represent- 
ing a number of congregations. On this passage Dr. 
Whedon remarks : 

" 22. Pleased it — It was the pleasure or decree. This 
was one of the forms of passing a law. Apostles and 
elders seem to decree, the whole church concur- 
ring." 

In following this precedent set by the apostles, surely 
we can not go " contrary to the genius of Christianity, 
and the nature of things. " It is a return to this Apos- 
tolic way of doing things that we are pleading for, where 
" THE whole church," not a part of it, shall have the 
right to concur, or non-concur in everything proposed in 
the Councils of the Church. Our General Conference, 
at its last session got back to this Apostolic practice 
when it submitted this question to the concurrence, or 
non-concurrence of the whole Church ! Now, let us 
stand by the voice of the Church, and we will stand by 
the Apostolic Rule. 

But Paul declares that sex makes no distinction in 
Christ Jesus, any more than nationality. In Gal. 3: 28, 
he says : 

1 ' There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither 
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female : for ye 
are all one in Christ Jesus." 

I know Dr. Buckley, and all our woman subjection - 
ists, tell us that this means that there is no distinction in 



76 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

spiritual privileges, but it has no relation to rights in the 
Church. But this interpretation can not stand the test of 
criticism. The distinction between " Jew and Greek," 
certainly did not apply simply to spiritual privileges, but 
it deprived the Greek of the rights and debarred him 
from the offices of the Church. The doing away with 
that distinction in Christ, put him in the possession of 
the rights, privileges and offices of the Church. None will 
call this in question. The same is true in regard to the 
distinction between ' ' bond and free. ' ' By what rule of 
interpretation, then, shall we say it does not blot out 
the distinction " between male and female," that the 
laws of heathenism had made, which reduced woman to 
the position of a slave, or to perpetual tutelage, and lifts 
her to the position of equality with man in the Church of 
Christ? That is precisely what the passage means 
when it says, ' ' there is neither Jew nor Greek ; there 
is neither bond nor free." By what necessity of 
exegesis must we give the expression ' ' there is 
neither male nor female" a totally different interpre- 
tation ? ' ' Oh ! If we give this passage its natural 
and legitimate interpretation it will put woman on an 
equality with man in the Church, just as it puts the 
Greek on an equality with the Jew, and that will be 
1 contrary to the genius of Christianity, and the nature 
of things,' " says Dr. Hawley, and it " will leave both 
man and woman without the Gospel of Christ," says 
Dr. Buckley ! ! These would be dire results indeed, 
and hence an unusual meaning must be attached to this 
passage to prevent this dreadful catastrophe ! ! But de- 
spite all this, there is no getting around the fact that this 
passage sweeps away all race, class, and sex distinctions 
in the Church of Christ, and puts all redeemed men and 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 77 

women, without distinction of race, previous condition, 
or sex, on an equality. To give it any other interpreta- 
tion, we have got to do violence to every principle of 
exegesis, and to the spirit and genius of Christianity. 
On this passage Dr. Adarn Clarke remarks : 

"Under the Gospel all distinctions are done away, 
as either helping or hindering ; all are equally welcome 
to Christ ; and all have an equal need of him ; all per- 
sons, of all sects, and conditions, and sexes, who believe in 
him, become one family through him, they are one body 
of which he is the head. 

' ' Neither male ?ior female. With great reason the 
apostle introduces this. Between the privileges of men 
and women, there was a great disparity among the Jews. 
A man might shave his head and rend his clothes, in 
time of mourning ; a woman was not permitted to do so. 
A man might impose the vow of Nasirate upon his son ; 
a woman could not do so on her daughter. A man 
might be shorn on account of the Nasirate of his father ; 
a woman could not. A man might betroth his daughter ; 
a woman had no such power. A man might sell his 
daughter, a woman could not. In many cases they were 
treated more like children than adults, and to this da} 7 , 
are not permitted to assemble with the men in the syna- 
gogues, but are put up in the galleries, where they can 
scarcely see, nor can they be seen. Under the blessed 
spirit of Christianity, they have equal rights, equal 
privileges, and equal blessings ; and let me add, they are 
equally useful. ' ' Dr. Clarke knew nothing of the inter- 
pretation which limits this passage to spiritual blessings, 
and confers no rights. I presume he understood it as 
well as our modern woman subjectionists ! 

But let us look at the position of woman in the fam- 



78 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

ily, in the New Testament. Here we have the command 
of the Decalogue enforced : 

" Children, obey your parents in the L,ord : for this 
is right. 

* ' Honor thy father and mother, which is the first 
commandment with promise ; 

' ' That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest 
live long on the earth" (Eph. 6: 1-3). 

Here the governmental authority Oi the family is 
lodged in the hands of the parents, and the same 
honor is commanded to be given to the mother, that is to 
be given to the father. In Luke 2:51, it is said : 

" And he went down with them, and came to Naza- 
reth, and was subject unto them." 

Jesus honored the government of Mary, His mother, 
in the family, as much as He did that of Joseph. The 
right of woman as a lawgiver in the family, recognized in 
the Old Testament, can not be restricted in the New. In 
the New Testament there is an enlargement, and not a 
restriction of privileges and rights. Whatever rights 
women had under the Old Testament, they have under 
the New, and still larger rights, for that is the genius of 
the New Testament. The fact that the mother has 
equal authority with the father in the government of the 
family, is so apparent from the Word of God, that Dr. 
Buckley admits it, and in his editorial on " Woma?i in 
the Family,'" Christian Advocate, August 7, 1890, he 
says, " The husband and the wife, relatively to the chil- 
dren, are invested with joint authority." 

We would like to know how a subject can be invested 
" zvith joint authority" with his sovereign ? Dr. Buckley 
had just quoted the words of Paul : " But as the Church 
is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 79 

husbands in EVERYTHING. " If Paul is here laying 
down a universal law for the government of the family, 
then the idea of ' ' joint authority ' ' in the government 
of the children is an absurdity. According to this com- 
plete subjection " in everything, " all that the wife has 
to do in the government of the children, is to receive the 
law at the mouth of the husband, and enforce it in his 
absence, having no will, choice, or authority, of her own 
in the case whatever. But this is not the law of the 
Bible in either the Old or the New Testament, but as 
Dr. Buckley says, it is that of " joint authority." 
But joint authority necessarily implies equality and not 
subjection. This very fact ought to show to him that 
the interpretation of this and similar passages in the 
New Testament, which would make this subjection of the 
wife to the husband in everything, a general law, is 
fundamentally wrong, and at war with the general teach- 
ing of God's Word. 

But Dr. Buckley will say: '"Does not Paul enforce 
this subjection of the wife to the husband, by the hus- 
band's headship over the wife ?" Certainly he does ; and 
he enforced the duty of the woman to have her head cov- 
ered when she "prophesied or prayed " in the church, in 
I. Cor. 11: 3-5, by the very same fact — the headship of 
man. But did that make it a universal law of the 
Church that women should always veil their faces when 
they prophesy, or pray in the church ! Dr. Buckley will 
not contend that it did. Then how can this fact make 
this passage a universal law of the Church ? But I 
showed on that passage that headship did not imply 
governmental authority and power, and a careful exam- 
ination of this entire passage will show that the recipro- 
cal relations of husband and wife, as here laid down, are 



80 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

incompatible with the governmental subjection of the 
wife to the husband. He will not contend for the literal 
interpretation of the language here used : " Wives, sub- 
mit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the 
L,ord." And, " Therefore as the church is subject unto 
Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands, in 
EVERYTHING," for that would be a complete abrogation 
of God's law to the wives, and it would be verily a ' ' mak- 
ing void of the law of God," in the fullest sense of the 
word. A literal interpretation of the language here 
used, would put the husband in relation to the wife as 
God, and without reference to his moral character, or 
whether he was a Christian or a Pagan, compel the wife 
to obey him ' 'as the Lord " ! ! This would be an apos- 
tolic law, compelling Christian women who had Pagan 
husbands to become idolaters, and bow down to idols, in 
obedience to their husbands ! ! No sane man will con- 
tend for any such interpretation as this, and yet this is 
the literal meaning of "the letter" of Paul's language, 
but we know that is not the spirit of it, and that he did 
not mean any such thing. 

We get an explanation of what Paul means in this 
passage, by his language in Col. 3: 18 ; where he says : 
" Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as 
it is fit in the Lord. ' ' The submission is to be only such 
as the general teaching of the Word and Spirit of the 
Gospel requires, " as is fit in the Lord." This does 
away, at a single stroke, with all this governmental and 
authoritative submission contended for by Dr. Buckley, 
and gives us a submission in love, not of an inferior to a 
superior, but of an equal to an equal. Dr. Buckley vir- 
tually admits this, in his remarks on this very passage, 
quoting the next verse : ' ' Husbands, love your wives, 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 81 

and be not bitter against them," which special caution 
plainly signifies that the element of headship is always to 
be thoroughly imbued with love." 

In the passage he quotes from Peter, we have a further 
explanation of the reason why the 'Apostles enjoined 
obedience on the wives. Peter says : 

" In like manner, ye wives be in subjection to your 
own husbands ; that even if any obey not the word, they 
may without the word be gained by the behaviour of the 
wives ; beholding your chaste behaviour, coupled with 
fear." (New Version as quoted by Dr. Buckley.) 
Here the reason assigned for the subjection, is that the 
unbelieving husbands maybe "gained," that is led to 
Christ and saved. 

But why do we have this Apostolic injunction of 
submission, obedience, etc., to women in the Apostolic 
Age, especially in the epistles to the Greek Churches, 
when the general teaching of both Testaments is, that in 
the family, and the Church, women and men are equal? 
The answer is to be found in the social customs and laws 
of the people to whom the epistles were written. 

The Apostles were not preaching the Gospel of reoel- 
lion against social customs and civil laws ; but they were 
preaching the Gospel of salvation, and laying down gen- 
eral principles, which as they permeated human society, 
would revolutionize it — put an end to all despotism, and 
enfranchise the human race. Hence, so far as social cus- 
toms and laws did not conflict with the obligation of the 
individual to God, they enjoined obedience to the civil 
laws, and conformity to the social customs of the people, 
that they might not be hindered in their work of spread- 
ing the Gospel. But these injunctions were not designed 
to be of perpetual binding force in the Church. They 



82 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

were not like the great moral principles embraced in the 
Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Rule, 
and the I,aw of L,ove, which are of perpetual binding 
force. This fact is universally admitted. Now, apply it 
to the case in hand, and the whole difficulty is cleared up, 
and the apparent contradiction between the general 
teaching of the Bible and these special injunctions dis- 
appears at once. 

What was the position of woman under Greek and 
Roman law, and what was her social condition? In 
these we will find a solution of this problem that has per- 
plexed our theologians so long. Says Ortolan in his his- 
tory of Roman I^aw : 

' ' Women in the primitive era of the Romans were 
under the power of their fathers, or under the hand of 
their husbands ; they were the property of another ; were 
placed under perpetual guardianship." ( Christian 
Womanhood; By Rev. W. C. Black, D. D. y p. 74.) 

Gaius in his Institutes says : 

' ' According to our ancestors, even women who have 
attained their majority, on account of their levity of mind, 
require to be kept in tutelage. Accordingly, when a 
brother and a sister have a testamentary guardian, on 
reaching the age of puberty the brother ceases to be a 
ward, but the sister continues." {Ibid.) 

Cicero says : ■' All women, on account of the infirm- 
ity of their judgment, our ancestors determined should 
be under the power of tutors. ' ' ( Ibid. ) 

Augustine says : ' ' The Voconian L,aw prohibited a 
man from making a woman, even an only daughter, his 
heir." {Ibid p. 75.) 

The Greeks were still worse. 

1 ' Cowlange says : ' ' At marriage the girl abandons her 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 83 

religion, gives up the gods of her infancy, and has there- 
after the same deities as her husband." {Ibid p. 22.) 

Says Plutarch : "A wife should have no gods but 
those of her husband." {Ibid.) 

Demosthenes says : ' ' The law of Solon declares that 
all acts that are done under the influence of a woman 
shall be null and void." {Ibid.) 

Shall we interpret the apostles in such a manner as 
to engraft these laws and customs of heathenism on to 
the New Testament, and instead of the Gospel bringing 
freedom to woman, make it bind the chains of a perpet- 
ual and absolute subjection upon her ? This is precisely 
what the interpretation of Dr. Buckley does. Is the 
Church of the Nineteenth Century willing to go back to 
the First Century, and after the Gospel has lifted woman 
to the exalted position she now occupies morally, intel- 
lectually and socially, put the shackles of heathenish 
subjection once more upon her liberated hands at 
the behest of an interpretation of the writings of Paul 
and Peter which contradicts the general teaching of 
the Word of God, and is contrary to the spirit and 
' ' genius of Christianity ' ' ? We do not believe that the 
enlightened judgment and conscience of the Church can 
be induced to stultify itself in such a manner at the dic- 
tum of fossil theologians. 

Let it not be forgotten that Dr. Buckley admits the 
"joint authority" of husband and wife in the govern- 
ment of the family ; and this necessarily puts the wife on 
an equality with the husband. In the family, then, 
himself being judge, woman stands or an equality with 
man, under the law of the New Testament. 

But after all, Dr. Buckley furnishes us another beau- 
tiful example of the Christian heart asserting its power 



84 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

over the harsh logic of the head which results from false 
premises. In his editorial on " Woman in the Family," 
he says : ' ' In the ideal family the husband is seldom 
conscious of his headship, nor the wife of her subjection ; 
for her natural devotion to him keeps her in the sphere of 
promotion, and his love to her debars him from entering 
the dark realm of selfish domination. At rare intervals 
does it become necessary for him, in virtue of his head- 
ship, to decide any of the questions which arise, and 
when it is necessary, it is so done as not to diminish love. 
Only as families approximate this state are they happy, 
and is marriage a success. ' ' 

What is this but a confession that his doctrine of the 
subjection of woman is " a dark and sexfish domina- 
tion," contrary to the Spirit of Christ, which can not 
exist where the true ideal Christian family exists ! ! No 
words could more fully and clearly set forth the antago- 
nism between his doctrine of the subjection of woman and 
the spirit of Christianity than he does in the above para- 
graph. His Christian heart revolts against his doctrine 
of woman's subjection, and he declares that the spirit 
of Christ, in the ideal family, will utterly destroy this 
subjection, which is "a dark and selfish domination," 
and consequently " contrary to the spirit and genius 
of Christianity ;" and therefore, false and unscrip- 
tural ! ! Dr. Buckley's heart, in this paragraph, has 
furnished the unanswerable argument against his doc- 
trine of woman's subjection to man, in the New Testa- 
ment. That which the Spirit of Christ in the heart 
uproots and destroys, can not be enjoined in the words of 
Christ. This a child can not fail to understand. He 
says the Spirit of Christ in the heart of the husband de- 
stroys the ' ' dark and selfish domination ' ' of the husband 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 85 

over the wife, therefore the law of Christ never conferred 
such "dark and selfish domination." That will do, Doc- 
tor. We thank you for furnishing us such indubitable 
evidence of the fallacy of your interpretations of Paul 
and Peter, and we will here rest the Scriptural argu- 
ment. 



CHAPTER VI. 

1 ' What the Admission of Women to the Gen- 
eral Conference will make Them." 

Under this head Dr. Buckley remarks : 

' ' The admission of women to the General Conference 
as delegates makes them at once rulers, for that is the 
supreme legislative and judicial body of the Church." 

But before we can do this Scripturally, he says we 
must show "that the apostle was mistaken," in the 
psssages he quotes, to prove man's governmental 
authority over woman, and her subjection to him, and 
when we have done this, he says, we will have demon- 
strated " that St. Paul was not inspired upon fundamental 
questions," and this "will leave both man and woman 
without the gospel of Christ." Again, he says, " If she 
and her male abettors are to trample under their feet the 
plain statements of God's Word, the Christia7i Church is 
gone. ' ' 

These would be results, indeed, to be deeply deplored, 
if they should follow. But we would suggest that after 
all, possibly we would not have to prove that ' ' St. Paul 
was mistaken," and "that he was not inspired," but we 
would simpfy have to show that his interpreters have 
been mistaken, and that they " are not inspired " ! This, 
we think, has been pretty thoroughly done ; and it still 
leaves the Gospel to "both man and woman," and we 
have not ' ' trampled under our feet the plain statements 
of God's word." We have, however, pretty thoroughly 
trampled under our feet our learned Doctor's interpreta- 

(86) 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 87 

tion of " God's Word," and shown it to be at war with 
the general teaching of both Testaments, and contrary to 
the spirit and "genius of Christianity." "The Chris- 
tian Church ' ' is not gone ; but after eliminating these 
false interpretations of God's Word, she stands forth 
on a true, Scripture basis, more divinely beautiful than 
ever. 

But if his position here is true — that to make women 
rulers" in the Church, by giving them an equal voice 
with men, in the Supreme Councils of the Church, is to 
' ' leave both man and woman without the Gospel of 
Christ," — and to "trample under their feet the plain 
statements of God's word, — and to destroy the Christian 
Church ; " then our Baptist, Congregational, and Quaker 
brethen have been guilty of all these terrible crimes 
against ' ' the Word of God, ' ' and ' ' the Christian Church, ' ' 
for they have admitted woman to their " supreme, legis- 
lative and judicial bodies of the Church," and given 
them an equal voice with men ! ! This is the first time 
we remember to have read a statement from a Methodist 
minister that completely unchurched and unchristianized 
our Baptist and Congregational brethren ! But, if Dr. 
Buckley's position is true, the Baptist and Congrega- 
tional Churches are not Christian Churches " ! ! It does 
not matter where "the supreme legislative and judi- 
cial" authority of the church is lodged, whether in the 
Congregation, ox the General Conference. To admit women 
to it, and give them an equal voice with men, is to make 
them "rulers" in Dr. Buckley's sense of the term, and 
that according to him, "leaves both man and woman 
without the Gospel of Christ," shows "that the apostle 
was mistaken and not inspired, " " tramples under feet the 
plain statements of God's Word;" and where this is 



88 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

done ' ' the Christian Church is gone " ! ! ! But he does 
not believe any such nonsense. He believes that the 
Baptist and Congregationalist Churches are as truly 
Scriptural churches of Jesus Christ, as he does that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church is. If they can be true 
" Christian Churches," and admit women to their su- 
preme legislative and judicial bodies, without declaring 
that "St. Paul was mistaken," or " that he was not in- 
spired," or without "leaving both man and woman 
without the Gospel of Christ, ' ' and without ' ' trampling 
under their feet the plain statements of God's Word," 
and without destroying ' ' the Christian Church, ' ' then 
the Methodist Episcopal Church can admit women to her 
"supreme legislative and judicial body," without any 
such direful results, and all of his argument here is 
simply empty rhetoric, thrown in for effect, and to fill up 
space ! ! Again he says : 

' ' If the old reverence for the word of God had not 
been sadly impaired, and much of that word forgotten, 
such proposals would never have been made or would 
have found little encouragement. It is this which makes 
the subject so important. And this far-reaching result 
doubtless led Paul to say upon this subject : ' If any man 
think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him ac- 
knowledge that the things that I write unto you, are the 
commandments of the Lord. ' ' ' 

It seems to be impossible for Dr. Buckley to distin- 
guish between " reverence for God's word" and reverence 
for his interpretation of it ! He is constantly accusing 
many of the wisest, most learned, and deeply pious of his 
brethren with a sad lack of " reverence for God's word, 
who have as profound a reverence for the Word of God, 
as he possibly can have ; but they are utterly unable to 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 89 

" reverence" his interpretation of it ! ! But on this point, 
he is mentally color-blind, and can not distinguish the 
difference between the two ! We as devoutly accept 
what Paul wrote on this, and every other question, " as 
the comma?idments of the Lord" as he does, but we can 
see an infinite difference between what "Paul wrote" and 
his interpretation of it ! Our controversy is not with 
Paul, but with Dr. Buckley. We do not believe that 
Paul was mistaken, or that he was not inspired ; but we 
do most firmly believe that Dr. Buckley is sadly mis- 
taken, and that he is far from being inspired on this 
question ! If the good Doctor could only once get this 
into his head, he would be more charitable to his brethren 
who differ from him. 

Letting in the Light. 

This is the title of a very remarkable editorial, which 
is No. 3 in his pamphlet. It does not touch the question 
of the admission of women to the General Conference; 
but dwells upon the results which are to follow, should 
they be admitted. These terrible results he assures us 
are embraced in "The full meaning of women in the 
General Conference," and they are, 1. " The admission 
of women to the ministry on the same terms and by the 
same methods as men." We have shown the utter fal- 
lacy of this charge already. The two have no con- 
nection with each other. They stand upon entirely 
different grounds. We are now contending that, women 
are laymen, and that as laymen, they are entitled, by 
the Law of God, and the law of the Church, to be ad- 
mitted as Lay Delegates to the General Conference. 
The question of their admission to the ministry is not in 
the case at all, and to bring it in, because some who are 



90 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

in favor of their admission to the General Conference as 
Lay Delegates, are also in favor of their ' ' admission to 
the ministry on the same terms, and by the same methods 
as men," or to charge that this is a " part of a general 
movement" to accomplish certain ends both inside and 
" outside the sphere of the Church," is unjust and unfair 
and it can only obscure the real issue. Let us meet these 
questions in a manly, straightforward way, and discuss 
them on their merits. Surely we can afford to do this, 
without dragging in, or "tacking on " this important 
question of woman's call and admission to the ministry* 
as a side issue \ to create prejudice against their admission 
as Lay Delegates to the General Conference. 

2. "It means woman suffrage in the State ! ' ' After 
all, from the general tone of his editorials, we would 
come to the conclusion, that it was primarily against 
woman suffrage, that he was contending. This bugbear 
looms up before him continually, and he can not resist 
the impulse to strike it, whenever, in his imagination, he 
sees it popping up its head ! ! " The New Century Club; " 
" The Woman's Christian Temperance Union;" "The 
Woman's Council," and Miss Frances K. Willard, all 
trouble our redoubtable "Champion of Man;" but all 
these pale into insignificance, whenever the ghost of Female 
Suffrage appears, and the trouble is, this ghost seems to 
be ever before him, and haunting even his dreams ! ! 

In his editorial on " Woman in the Family," he treats 
us to a number of quotations from Mona Caird, in which 
the abominations of Freeloveism are taught! We ask, in 
the name of reason and Christian forbearance, what has 
all this to do with this question ? Does he intend to inti- 
mate that those of us who favor the admission of women 
to our General Conference are Freelovers, and that we 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 91 

want to disrupt the family, and introduce instead all the 
abominations of Freeloveism ? If not, what does he 
introduce these quotations for? Is there any affinity 
between the movement in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church to give women the right to sit in the General 
Conference, and the abominations of Freeloveism ? Why 
does he put our Christian forbearance to such a test, by 
introducing such matter in this controversy? If many of 
his editorials may not be styled ' ' Editorials Extraor- 
dinary, ' ' we can not conceive what might be legitimately 
so termed. But what has the Methodist Episcopal 
Church to do with Female Suffrage in the State, that this 
question should be thrust so prominently forward in this 
discussion ? Church and State are totally distinct from 
each other in this country, and the enfranchisement of 
woman in the Methodist Episcopal Church can have no 
more connection with the enfranchisement of woman in 
the State, than her enfranchisement in the Baptist and 
Congregational Churches has. Dire as would be the 
results of the admission of woman into the General Con- 
ference, according to Dr. Buckley, he seems to think her 
enfranchisement in the State would be still more dreadful. 
One would verily suppose from the manner he opposes it 
he would think that the very ' ' foundations of the earth 
would be moved, and the pillars of heaven shaken," 
if women should be permitted to vote ! ! Whatever 
may be the views of particular individuals in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in regard to Woman Suffrage 
in the State, that question has nothing to do with the 
question before us. This question must be settled by the 
teachings of the Word of God, in regard to woman's 
rights in the church, and not by an appeal to her political 
rights. All that Dr. Buckley has had to say on the sub- 



92 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

ject of Female Suffrage, is wholly foreign to the subject. 
3. "And to further other objects outside the sphere 
of the Church." What these other objects are, he has 
not told us, and we can not tell, unless it should be 
the cause of temperance. Surely he does not mean the 
doctrines taught by Mona Caird ! ! 

"THE WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION." 

One would think that in view of the grand work of 
this organization of Christian women, a Christian minis- 
ter and official editor of the Leading Organ of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, which has so often, and in so 
many ways indorsed the Woman's Christian Temper- 
ance Union and its noble work, would only have words 
of commendation for it. But, with Dr. Buckley, " the 
two dead flies" in this "precious ointment," has 
caused it to stink in his theological nostrils [ It has 
dared to put a plank in its platform in favor of female 
suffrage, and its President, in her annual address, before 
the National Convention in 1889, he tells us, ." called for 
a resolution asking the laymen of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, who will in the fall of 1890 take action on 
the question of making women eligible as delegates to 
the General Conference, to do as they would be done by, 
and the lay women to remember that there is neither male 
nor female in Christ Jesus, and who would be free him- 
self must strike the blow. ' ' 

If the noble Christian women, who have been fight- 
ing the terrible monster that has been desolating their 
homes so long, and destroying annually a hundred thou- 
sand of the sons of American mothers who have stood 
helplessly by, pleading with the demons in human shape 
who have been fattening on the .blood of their murdered 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 93 

sons and ruined households, should now demand the 
right to strike the murderers of their sons, is it a crime 
for which they ought to be held up before the Christian 
world by learned Doctors of Divinity, and Official edit- 
ors of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as seeking to 
' ' make void the L,aw of God, ' ' and to do that which is 
" contrary to the genius of Christianity, and the nature 
of things"! Ignorant, vicious, and even criminal for- 
eigners, can come to our shores, and natives of the same 
class, both white and colored, with no qualification 
to exercise the elective franchise, except that they 
are men, and by their votes fasten upon us the awful 
crime of the liquor traffic, which without their votes 
could not live a single year, yet the pure, intelligent, cul- 
tivated women of our country, who have more at stake, 
in their sons and husbands, a thousandfold, than all the 
millions invested in this soul-destroying business, must 
forever stand by and wring their hands in agony, only to 
see the men who are destroying them laugh at their help- 
less misery, while grave and learned D.D.'s stand by and 
preach the doctrine of submission to all this outrage, and 
tell the dear women that for them to even think of exer- 
cising the right of suffrage to protect their homes, and 
save their sons, is " against the law of nature and God," 
and contrary to the genius of Christianity ! ! ! 

In regard to the Woman's Suffrage Plank in the plat- 
form of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, as an 
editor of a Church paper, Dr. Buckley has nothing to do 
any more than he has with any other purely political 
question. Hence, every word he has to say on this 
question is wholly out of place, in this controversy and 
elsewhere. A.s a Christian man, and a Methodist 
preacher, we protest against this prostitution of our lead- 



94 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

ing Church organ to any such purpose. But then, the 
President of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union 
had the temerity to ask the National Convention to petition 
the men of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in their vote 
on the admission of women as delegates to the General 
Conference, ' c to do as they would be done by," and to ad- 
monish the women that ' ' who would be free himself 
must strike the blow, ' ' and for this worthy cause, she and 
the whole body over which she presides must be accused 
of attempting to control the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in the interest of Woman Suffrage ! Now, we ask in all 
candor, what was there wrong or improper in the resolu- 
tion prepared by Miss Willard ? Has not every Ameri- 
can citizen the right of petition? What was that 
resolution but a respectful request, such as is always 
proper, and which has been done on almost every great 
question by Conventions, both political and ecclesiastical, 
and no one ever thought that they were overstepping the 
bounds of propriety. When bills in regard to the 
Liquor Traffic and other moral questions have been be- 
fore the Legislature, how many times have Conferences, 
and other religious bodies, petitioned in favor of them, 
or remonstrated against them ? Who ever thought that 
the Methodist Episcopal Church was trying to get con- 
trol of the Government, and run it in the interest of the 
Church, because, as Christian bodies, they exercised 
their right of petition or remonstrance, as the case might 
be? Just now, the Churches throughout the land, in 
their congregations, conferences, and other assemblies, 
are earnestly petitioning the managers of the Columbian 
Exposition of 1893 not to open its doors on the Sabbath. 
Is there anything wrong in this ? O, no, there is noth- 
ing wrong in men petitioning men; but when it comes to 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 95 

women petitioning the men of the great Methodist Epis- 
copal Church "to do as they would wish to be done by," 
then it is a terrible wrong, and the Woman's Christian 
Temperance Union, through its noble President — a most 
devoted and honored member of the Church — is seeking 
to influence and control the Great Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the interest of woman suffrage ! ! A cause 
that requires such methods of defense must indeed be in 
a bad way ! 

Miss Willard comes in for her full share, and is 
represented as preparing the way for the organization 
of a new Church, which shall recognize women in all 
respects as equal to men. A careful examination of 
her language, quoted by Dr. Buckley, will not sustain 
this charge, while she has again and again repudiated 
any such intention. Her own explicit denial ought to 
satisfy Dr. Buckley, and everyone else. She states : 
" I never suggested the formation of a new church, and 
explicitly stated that it was to be a church union whose 
members would be in no wise disturbed in their existing 
church relations." The following taken from the West- 
ern Christian Advocate of Dec. 10, ought to settle the 
question, both in regard to the W. C. T. U. and its Pres- 
ident. 

"an inquiry answered." 

" A personal note concerning the vote in a certain 
charge contained the following : 

' ' ' There was quite an interest awakened, and many 
changed their votes fromyftrto against, on account of the 
report being freely circulated that it was a political move- 
ment in the interest of the Prohibition party and the W. 
C. T. U., and that Frances Willard was at the head of 
it, and that she went to the last General Conference with 



g6 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

a petition for the admission, and presented the same. 
Now, if your space will admit of it, will you not state 
the exact facts in regard to the matter in a few words, 
and why the attack should be made on Miss Willard, 
and scarcely anything be said about the other lady 
delegates ? ' " 

"Miss Willard was not present at the last General Con- 
ference, having been detained by the illness of her 
mother. So she presented no petition of any sort. She 
is made the target because of her greater prominence and 
influence. Some people who charge her with ' politics' 
use tactics indistinguishable from those of ward bosses. 
It were amusing were it not contemptible. 

" That this movement has any alliance with the Pro- 
hibition party is absurd. Just now quite a contention is go- 
ing on in the Chicago dailies ; and Miss Willard consented 
to an interview, which appears in the Chicago Evening 
Post, 26th ult. We will let her answer our querist : 
" 'As for the charge that this movement originated with 
and is being pushed by the W. C. T. U., I will say, and 
were it necessary, make affidavit to the assertion, that 
the W. C. T. U. has not in the slightest manner con- 
cerned itself about the movement. To two ladies in Ne- 
braska, not white ribboners — and whom I never saw 
until they had been brought to my attention by their 
earnest work for this cause — the credit of starting the 
question is due ; and when I, with four others, was 
elected to attend the Conference, I was far away from 
home, and knew nothing of it. And as for its being a 
political movement, I am at a loss to know what the 
gentlemen making the assertion mean. 

* * * ^ * >}C 

-' 'It has been said that the National Woman's Chris- 



Admission of Women to the General Co7iference. 97 

tian Temperance Union seeks to found a new Church. 
The following was adopted at the recent Convention in 
Atlanta, and ought to be conclusive. I quote from 
memory : 

11 'We have no thought of founding a new Church, 
and our President has never suggested to us any such 
work of supererogation. 

" 'For myself, I have only suggested that, as a possi- 
ble contingency, men and women of progressive views 
concerning woman in the Church might organize a 
Church union to illustrate the same, but not disturbing 
the existing Church relations of any member thereof. It 
seems to me, however, the better way to let the reform 
work itself out within our own borders. I am a loyal 
Methodist, and expect always so to be. Not a more gro- 
tesque difficulty has been raised than that women ought 
not to be delegates because they could not be bishops, 
and no delegate should be ineligible to any office. How 
about the solid men of business, like J. B. Hobbs, Orring- 
ton Lunt, and others of our leading laymen, who may 
go to General Conference next time ? Is there any alarm 
felt lest they become bishops ? 

" ' No man can present any proof that woman suf- 
fragists are trying to "capture" the grand old Methodist 
Church with its 2,000,000 members. As well might a 
mouse try to entrap a mountain. This movement is an 
evolution and in perfect keeping with the general devel- 
opment that is opening colleges and professional schools 
to woman, removing her disabilities in law, and putting 
into her hands industrial weapons. This tidal wave will 
reach all shores and lift humanity, man and woman, to a 
higher and holier plane. "The letter killeth — the spirit 



98 Admission of Women to the General Confere?ice. 

givetli life." Christ's gospel means justice to every race 
and condition, to both sexes, and to all mankind.' 

' ' BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN. ' ' 

Under this head the Doctor remarks : " All objec- 
tions to the admission of women into the General Confer- 
ence come at last to this — that they are women and not 
men . ' ' This is frank and to the point. If he had stated this 
at the outset, and stuck to his text, for this is the text after 
all, we would have been saved a vast amount of irrele- 
vant matter in this controversy. And why object 
" because they are women and not men " f He answers: 
' ' Not because they are inferior in intellect or piety does 
any one object, nor allege that those likely to be elected 
are inferior to the average of men in knowledge or gen- 
eral adaptive faculty ; nor that there are none equal in 
intelligence and piety to the best of men, but because 
they are women, intrusted by God with a form of 
mental and spiritual influence, and a corresponding work 
different from that of man." 

Here we have the confession of this able champion of 
the right of men to do all the legislating and governing, 
that women are not " inferior" to men " in intellect or 
piety," and that those who would likely be elected, 
would not be ■ ' inferior to the average of men in knowl- 
edge or general adaptive faculty;" and that there are 
women who are " equal in intelligence and piety to the 
best of men." We hope that we will hear no more of 
woman's mental inability for the work of legislation for 
the Church after this, for Dr. Buckley fully admits 
woman's ability, piety, adaptiveness, knowledge, and 
intelligence for the work. ' ' But because they are 
women, intrusted by God with a form of mental and 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 99 

spiritual influence, and a corresponding work different 
from that of man." Here we have it in a nutshell. But 
we reply : The very ' ' form of mental and spiritual 
influence" God has "intrusted" woman with, pecul- 
iarly fits her for the work of teaching and legislating. 
She is the Divinely appointed teacher, legislator, and 
governor of the human race for the first fifteen years of its 
existence, and how this could unfit her for the work of 
legislating for the remainder of life, passes our powers to 
comprehend. Man has but little to do with teaching, 
legislating, or governing the human race until it reaches 
maturity, and how this can give him special qualifica- 
tions for it would certainly take a philosopher to tell ! 

How the introduction of ' ' women into the General 
Conference " " would embarrass " it " and exert an unfa- 
vorable influence upon women, interfering greatly with 
the performance of their own work," we are unable to 
perceive. This is simply assumption, unsupported by 
facts, and not sustained by reason. But the Doctor says : 
' ' Women should not be given legislative functions, 
because they are preoccupied with work of equal impor- 
tance to that of legislation, and when they do that work 
properly and confine themselves to it they exert a greater 
influence for good, even over legislation and its results, 
than they could if members of legislative bodies." This 
is mere assumption, and can not pass unchallenged. 
Multitudes of our very best and most intelligent women 
are not so ' ' preoccupied with work of equal importance 
to that of legislation," that they have no time to devote 
to the great questions which come before our General 
Conference. In this respect, multitudes of our most 
competent women, have vastly more time to devote to 
these questions than most men have. 



ioo Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

The facts are exactly the opposite of this objection. 
But this objection refutes itself at the other point, for if 
women have such power as the Doctor says they have 
over our ' ' legislation and its results, ' ' while they are not 
permitted to have a voice in it, surely they could exert a 
greater influence if they were members of the legislative 
bodies. All this kind of assumption is worthless, and 
can not be dignified with the name of argument. 

But he thinks that if women were admitted to the 
General Conference they would be lost amid the vocifer- 
ous shouting and gesticulating of forty or fifty members 
on the floor at once trying to catch the eye and reach the 
ear of the president. "Most women would be utterly 
lost in such a contest," he says. Those who have been 
to the General Conference a few times, and have witnessed 
the scenes here described, can not help but think that the 
admission of a few refined and cultured women to that 
body would have a very beneficial effect upon some of the 
members, and probably lessen the confusion very percep- 
tibly. He says: "Since masculine mental and moral 
qualities can not be eradicated, to give women any 
opportunity in the General Conference, a plan must be 
devised to feminize the body. ' ' We think from an experi- 
ence in three General Conferences with Dr. Buckley, that 
this would be a capital idea, and would be a great im- 
provement in conducting its business ! ! But seriously, are 
such things to be presented to us, as arguments why 
women should not be admitted as members of the Gen- 
eral Conference ! ! 

But the climax is reached when he tells us that ' 'The 
year preceding the General Conference is always a hard 
year upon the spiritual interests of the Church. Pastors 
and layman are filled with the pending discussions. * * * 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 101 

But the sheet anchor of the spiritual interests of the 
Church during that year is the fact that the majority of 
women are as faithful to the prayer-meeting, the class- 
meeting, and general religious services of the time, as 
any other. Indeed, many of them, having learned by 
sad experience the effect of absorption in such things on 
their pastor and brethren, being themselves not carried 
away with them, betake themselves to prayer for God's 
blessing upon the Church. But when women become 
eligible, all this will be changed. They, too, will be 
engaged in debating and contending, and one year in 
every four all the forces will combine to produce spiritual 
apathy." 

This surely ought to settle the case against the admis- 
sion of women to our General Conference, for if it does 
not, we do not see how any more could be said !! If it is 
going to injure the spiritual interests of the Church to 
this fearful extent, then by all means keep the women 
out ! And if the admission of Laymen has had such a 
deleterious effect on the religious life of the Laymen, by all 
means, to save our laymen, and preserve the spirituality 
of the Church, let us abolish Lay Representation ! Our 
Preachers, above all others, ought to be spiritual men, 
and if Ministerial Delegation has this fearful effect on 
them, let us abolish it, and turn the whole matter of 
the government of the Church over to the Bishops, with 
power to perpetuate their own body, and thus save our 
dear Pastors from the temptation to backslide, or sink into 
"spiritual apathy," one year in every four! ! But, in 
all seriousness, we ask again, are these all the reasons 
that can be assigned by so able a " champion oiMan" 
as Dr. Buckley, why women should not be admitted to 
the General Conference ' ' Because they are Women ' ' ? 



102 Admission of Women to the General Conference. 

Yes, this is the best that can be done ! No wonder Dr. 
Buckley has put in his time on "Woman Suffrage," 
4 ' Freeloveism, " " The Open L,etter to Women, ' ' and ' ' The 
Woman's Christian Temperance Union." These ques- 
tions afforded a fine opportunity to throw dust ; but when 
he gets down to the real question, " Because they ark 
Women," he has not advanced a single argument why 
women should not be admitted to the General Conference 
that a sensible man ought not to be ashamed of ; while 
some of the reasons he assigns why they should not be 
admitted, are among the strongest reasons why they 
should be. His letter from John Bright, his reference 
to "Mother Bickerdike," and his "Reminiscence of the 
Crusade," do not touch the question, and hence they may 
be dismissed without further notice. 

If women should be admitted as L,ay Delegates to 
the General Conference, none of the direful results pict- 
ured by the imagination of Dr. Buckley could possibly 
occur. Before they could take their seats as Delegates, 
they would have to be elected by the Lay Electoral Con- 
ferences, and none but those of pre-eminent fitness could 
be elected, for after all, they would not be elected by 
women, but by men. Very few women would be elected 
to the Electoral Conferences, and the Female Delegates 
would not be elected to represent sex, but to represent the 
Laymen. Surely there is not such imminent danger of 
women getting control of the Church, and running it on 
a sex basis, that to prevent such a catastrophe, they must 
be disfranchised ! From the tone of Dr. Buckley's edi- 
torials, one would come to the conclusion that this is the 
only possible way to save ' ' the Gospel of Christ to man 
and woman," and to save " the Christian Church " from 
annihilation ! Our sanctified Methodist women do not 



Admission of Women to the General Conference. 103 

need any such heroic treatment to keep them from 
destroying the Church of Christ, and to argue that they 
do is a slander on the women of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. The consecrated women who have sacrificed 
so much for the Church, and who have by their zealous 
labors contributed so largely to its success, are not going 
to pull down the work of their own hands, if they are 
permitted to have a voice in the Councils of the Church. 
Methodism owes more to the devotion, zeal, and wise 
counsel of her consecrated women, for her success under 
God, than to any other human agency, and her interests 
are not going to suffer, if her women are permitted to sit 
by the side of their brothers in the General Conference. 
All we ask is, give to woman the rights accorded to her 
in the New Testament, and God will take care of the 
results. 



APPENDIX. 



In The Christian Advocate of Jan. 8th, 1891, Dr. Buckley 
has an editorial on the "Significance of the Vote," some 
points of which call for special notice. 

He asks, "What is its eEGai, significance"? and 
answers: "To this there can be but one answer: It has none 
whatever." Technically speaking, by "the letter" of the Law, 
this is true. But in a broader sense, and according to "the 
Spirit " of the law, it is false. The General Conference is a legal 
body, and its acts have, or ought to have legal and binding force. 
It is a representative body, and its acts ought to bind those whom 
it represents. Taking this plain, common-sense view of the subject, 
(and no Methodist Minister or Layman has a right to take any 
other), the vote has tremendous " Legal Significance." What are 
the facts in the case ? 

1. Under the most common-sense interpretation of the action 
of the General Conference of 1868, in submitting the question of 
lay representation to the whole Church — men and women on equal 
terms — and the action of the General Conference of 1872, which 
stated : 

" The General Conference holds that, in all matters connected 
with the election of lay delegates, the word 'laymen ' must be 
understood to include all the members of the Church who are not 
members of an Annual Conference" ; five Electoral Conferences 
elected, each, a female delegate, not doubting for a moment, that 
they were acting in perfect harmony with the constitution and 
1 aw of the Church. 

2. When these female delegates presented themselves at the 
door of the General Conference, the Bishops saw fit to order their 
names stricken from the list of delegates elect, which many of us 
believed then, and believe yet, was an exercise of power, which as 
presidents of the General Conference, they did not, under the 
Constitution and law of the Church, possess. 

3. After discussing the question of the Constitutionality of the 
right of these " elect ladies," to the seats to which they had been 
elected by their brethren, for several days, the General Conference 
by a majority vote of thirty-seven ministers and two laymen, 

(104) 



Appendix. 105 

decided, that as the question of their right was a doubtful ques- 
tion, they would not admit them. 

This was not the form of the question on which the vote was 
taken ; but it was the essence of it. A number voted for the 
majority report, on this very ground, who were in favor of admit- 
ting the female delegates to their seats, and who believed that they 
had as perfect a right to their seats as they had ; but in deference to 
the ruling of the Bishops, aud the earnest appeal of those who held 
that the Constitution forbade their admission, preferred to submit 
the question to the whole Church, and to the Annual Conferences, 
and bring them in through the constitutional process, so as to 
obviate all objections on the part of our conservative brethren. 

4. The General Conference then voted to send the question, 
1, To the whole membership of the Church over twenty-one years 
of age ; 2, To the Annual Conferences ; and 3, to the General 
Conference of 1892. 

5. By this action it was certainly understood by every thought- 
ful and candid mind, that as the Church voted, so would the 
Annual and General Conferences vote. Any other understanding 
would make the action of the General Conference in submitting the 
question first to the Church, a farce and a mockery. There was 
no formal pledge by the General Conference that such should be 
the action of the Annual Conferences, but certainly, by every one 
who voted for the submission of the question to the Church in 
good faith, such was the understanding. Any other view of it 
would have been an insult to the Church. Dr. Buckley's position 
is practically this : " We, the General Conference, submit this 
question to )^ou, the members of the Church, but it is with the 
distinct understanding that your vote will have no legal signifi- 
cance whatever, and that it can not, and ought not to have any 
weight on any mind which conscientiously believes that women 
ought not to be admitted to the General Conference, or who be- 
lieves that though it is not contrary to the Word of God, it would 
be injurious to the Church to admit them !" If the General Con- 
ference had frankly made this statement when the question was 
submitted to the Church, as he has made it now, the whole Church 
would have indignantly refused to vote, and said : — "You have of- 
fered us the grossest insult. ' ' The very submission of the question 
by the General Conference, gives the vote tremendous moral and 
legal significance. This Dr. Buckley sees and feels, and ; 

6. He tries to minify the vote by showing the small per cent of 
the membership voting. But we reply, the per cent is much 
larger than that which voted either time on the question of Lay 
Delegation, and the majority for the admission of the women 
much larger ; so his labored effort on this point must go for noth- 
ing. We must be governed by the vote cast, and not by the vote 
that was not cast. The vot^ under the circumstances, is larger 
than the most sanguine expected, and no attempt to minify it, can 
break its force. Besides, it was the earnest, intelligent, conse- 



106 Appendix. 

crated men and women of the Church who voted, and their votes 
ought to weigh as well as count. 

7. His attempt to account for the very large majority for the 
proposition will not answer. He says: 

"Two or three ladies, as they had a right to do, among the 
most conspicuous in the town or charge, used their influence, 
powerful and persuasive, and men were put in a peculiar attitude. 

" For the first time in the history of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, votes were taken in the congregation, the effect of which 
was to confer real or supposed benefits (or to keep them from 
them) on one class, and the wives, mothers, sisters and daughters 
of those who were voting on equal terms. Men as voters were 
placed in a very peculiar position ; to avoid the embarrassment 
many stayed away. In one church a lady influenced nearly 
twenty who were doubtful of the wisdom of the movement, to vote, 
by pleasantly saying : " Are you going to vote against the 
women ? " 

This picture is certainly very much overdrawn. In my charge 
no such methods were resorted to, and yet forty-five votes were 
cast for the women, and not one against them ! I have heard of 
no such things in all this part ofthe country, and yet the majorities 
have been very large, generally from six to fifty to one ! But all 
this electioneering was not done on one side. Dr. Buckley forgets 
that for three months, with all the skill and resources at his com- 
mand and with unlimited space, as editor of the leading paper of 
the Church, he labored to prove that the admission of women to 
the General Conference would "make void the law of God," — 
that it would set "aside the authority of the apostles," — that it 
would " leave both man and woman without the Gospel of Christ;" 
that "the Christian family," and the " Christian Church would 
begone." He forgets that he made every appeal that was in his 
power to the consciences of the members of the Church to stand 
loyally by the law of God, as he understands it, and save the fam- 
ily and the Church from complete destruction, and save the Gospel 
of Christ to men and women ! ! He forgets that he appealed to 
every prejudice that he could stir up against female suffrage, 
charging that this was but a part of a general conspiracy to over- 
throw the Scriptural order of society, and exalt woman to the head 
ofthe government ofthe family, the Church, and the State. He 
forgets that he tried to fasten on the advocates of the admission of 
women as delegates to the General Conference, the odium of false 
interpreters of the Word of God, charging us with "adopting the 
principles of interpretation adopted by the Unitarians, Universal - 
ists, and other unevangelical Christians!" He forgets that to 
cast further odium upon us, and to stir up a deeper prejudice 
against the cause we advocate, by innuendo, he charged on us the 
advocacy of the abominations of F^eloveism, by quoting largely 
from Mona Caird ! ! He forgets that he published four of his 
editorials containing these very charges against us, in pamphlet 



Appendix. 107 

form, at three cents apiece, and advertised them largely in his 
paper, to give them a large circulation to influence the vote ! ! 
All this he strangely forgets ! ' ' Being exceedingly mad against ' ' 
the women, he "persecuted them even unto strange cities," 
attacking the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and its 
noble President, and charging that organization with having 
deserted its noble work, and entered into the general conspiracy 
against "the Christian home," "the Christian Church," 1 and the 
State ! ! 

No doubt, in all this, he was as conscientious as was the young 
man of Tarsus, and like him, "thought that he was doing God 
service." But, if ever " the scales " should fall from his eyes, like 
him, he will ever after realize that he has been "the chief of sin- 
ners " against the women of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

He continues: 

"Under such circumstances those who were in favor of the 
movement were present and cast their full vote. Of those who are 
opposed many are apathetic, others do not wish opposition ; many 
are satisfied with things as they are," etc. 

His assumption, that the full strength of the Church in favor 
of the movement, voted, while the opposition stayed away, and 
did not vote, is an assumption not sustained by the facts. We 
have just as good ground to assume, alter the tremendous effort 
of Dr. Buckley, and those who agree with him, to induce the 
Church to vote down the proposition, that the full strength of the 
opposition cast their vote, and that all who did not vote are in 
favor of the change as he has to assume the contrary. But the 
fact is, neither side has the right to make the assumption. If the 
full vote had been cast, doubtless, the proportion would have 
been about as it is. This is the rational presumption, and we are 
not warranted in making any other. 

But he continues : 

"For such reasons it has always been customary to consider 
those who did not vote as in sympathy with the existing order of 
things." 

On this point we remark : 

1. This is a strange way to settle any question. Who ever 
heard before, of counting the votes that were not cast? The Gen- 
eral Conference submitted the question to the vote of the Church, 
and the vote cast must settle it. Does any one suppose for a 
moment, that if the majority had been 100,000 against the admis- 
sion of women, instead of 100,000 in favor of it, that Dr. Buckley 
would not have claimed that it settled the question against the 
women? And does anyone believe that the advocates of the 
measure would have continued the fight for a moment, if the vote 
had gone against them? Now, we ask that the rule shall work 
both ways, and as the vote has gone so overwhelmingly in favor 
of the proposition, we demand that Dr. Buckley shall cease his 



108 Appendix. 

opposition, and like a Christian man, submit to the verdict of the 
Church. 

2. But his statement is not correct. This is the third time the 
General Conference has submitted questions to a vote of the 
Church, and on both the other occasions, the vote cast deter- 
mined the matter, and not the vote not cast. On the vote of the 
Church on Lay Delegation, Bishop Merrill, then editor of the West- 
ern Christian Advocate, though opposed to the measure up to that 
time, said : 

' The indications are that a majority of the votes cast the past 
month are in favor of lay delegation. This we regard as decisive 
of the question. [Italics ours. — Ed.] The Annual Conferences 
will recommend the necessary change in the Restrictive Rules, 
and this will be construed into an authorization of the General 
Conference to change its constitution so as to admit lay dele- 
gates. * * * 

We see only two sources of trouble. The first is the meagre- 
nessof thevote. In 1861 there were 28,884 votes for lay delegation, 
and 47,855 against it. making an aggregate of 76,739. Then the 
women did not vote, and this was regarded as a faint expression 
of the mind of the male members. The vote this time ought to 
have been 400,000. But we accept it, small as it is, as the voice of 
the Church. Although, so far as our acquaintance extends, a large 
majority of those who did not vote, prefer the Church as it is, we 
must accept their non-action as a consent to the change. 

"Again he said: ' Enough is known to assure us that a majority 
of the votes cast is for lay delegates. This meets the first condi- 
tions laid down in the plan. Those who did not vote have chosen 
not to be counted, and we cheerfully accord to them the right to 
be "counted out," so far as this question is concerned. It is their 
own action. The votes cast are The votes oe the people. ' 

" Daniel's 'History of Methodism ' gives the lay vote in #872, 
for lay representation, 100,000, against 50,000. 

"If that was a vote, so is this, and a most decisive one, too. 
And those who voted represent the life and energy of the 
Church."— JF. C. A., Jan. 14th, iSgr. 

This has been the rule of the Church up to this time, and not 
as Dr. Buckley states it. All we ask of him, is to adopt 
the manly, and sensible course Bishop Merrill adopted, and 
accord to those who chose, the right to be " counted out," and rec- 
ognize " THE VOTES CAST AS THE VOTES OE THE PEOPLE. " Stand 
by the rule hitherto governing the vote of the Church, and the 
question is settled. 

8. He asks : ' ' What influence should the vote exert upon 
those who are now called upon to say whether they will consent to 
the change in the Restrictive Rule or not? " On this point, his 
answer is clear and positive, that it should have no influence upon 
those who are opposed to the admission of women to the General 
Conference. He appeals again to their consciences, and declares 



Appendix. 109 

that "no expression of opinion to the contrary should have any 
effect to deter him from voting according to his conscience in the 
sight of God"! This is indeed a strange position to take on 
a question which has been submitted to the Church and the 
Annual Conferences for their judgment. It is an indirect im- 
peachment of the General Conference of 1888, for submitting a 
question to a vote of the Church and the Annual Conferences, 
which involves a change in the constitution of the Church that 
will * make void the Law of God." The General Conference of 
1888, certainly did not understand that the admission of women to 
to the General Conference is "anti-scriptural" or that it would 
" make void the law of God," or the men who composed that body 
would certainly never have submitted the question to the Church 
and the Annual Conferences. 

The judgment of the General Conference is against the posi- 
tion of Dr. Buckley, and now, to set up his judgment against the 
judgment of the General Conference, the Church, and a majority 
of the Annual Conferences, under a plea of conscience, is an 
assumption of infallibility that illy becomes a Methodist preacher. 
This plea of " anti-scriptural" and " making void the Law of 
God" was not broached in the General Conference by Dr. Buck- 
ley, nor any other opponent of the admission of the women dele- 
gates, as I now recollect, save Dr. Albert. It is an afterthought, 
and an indirect impeachment of the intelligence and Christian in- 
tegrity of that body. No plea of conscience can excuse any min- 
ister of the Methodist Episcopal Church from heeding the voice of 
the Church, as expressed in the vote on this question. 

8. But finally, he says : "If the entire lay vote had beenybf 
the admission of the women, it could have no legal force in mak- 
ing the change; and if the entire vote had been against, it could 
have no legal effect in preventing it. If the General Conference 
had unanimously voted that if the laity expressed a desire for the 
admission of women the rule should be changed and they should 
be admitted, it would have had no power to fulfill its promise or 
to influence' by authority a single vote of the only bodies that can 
possibly make the change." Now, we want to remind the Doctor 
that this is a sword that will cut both ways. By the very same prin- 
ciple, the fact that the General Conference by a bare majority 
vote decided that this is a question that requires a change in the 
Restrictive Rule, in order to admit the women, can not bind the 
next, or any succeeding General Conference, which by a majority 
vote may admit them, without any change in the Restrictive Rule. 
I think it doubtful if there are not a majority to-day, of Ministers 
and Laymen in the Methodist Episcopal Church who conscien- 
tiously believe that under the law of the Church as it now stands, 
women are just as much entitled to seats in the General Confer- 
ence as men. That was my conviction when I voted to admit 
them in 1888, and it is my conviction to-day, more firmly than 
ever. If the next General Conference should happen to be com- 



no Appendix. 

posed of a majority of men of this conviction, and some Elec- 
toral Conference should elect a woman, that body could admit 
them, according to Dr. Buckley's views of the power of the last 
General Conference, and they doubtless would, whether three- 
fourths of the members of the Annual Conferences shall vote to 
change the Restrictive Rule or not. The next General Conference 
will have the same right to decide that no change in the Restrictive 
Rule is necessary, as the last had to decide that it was. I presume 
that Dr. Buckley will admit this, after what he has said about the 
power of the General Conference "to influence by authority a 
single vote of the only bodies that can possibly make the 
change." 

We may yet have reason to thank the Doctor for his editorial 
on "The Significance of the Vote." 







i 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 212 945 8 • 




